Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2347 (RAJ)

Kaila Kumar Paliwal v. RPSC

2005-09-02

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The brief facts which has led to litigation to this stage are that the petitioner-appellant was appointed as a Lab Assistant in Government Higher Secondary School vide Annexure-5, dated 24.01.1992. While working as Lab Assistant, petitioner acquired the qualification of M.A. and B. Ed. in the year 1994. This qualification made him academically eligible to be appointed as Teacher for Secondary School. As per Annexure-7 submitted by the petitioner, he was assigned teaching Secondary Classes in Government Secondary School Hingota District, Dausa from 25.07.1994 to 16.07.1999 and thereafter at Government Secondary School Maukalan District Dausa from 17.07.1999 until the date of issue of the said certificate i.e., 112.1999 and thus, he has total experience of teaching secondary school for 5 years as on the date. The Principal of Government Secondary School had issued that certificate. This teaching experience was after the petitioner had acquired necessary qualification to be eligible for being appointed as Teacher to take Secondary Classes. 3. In pursuance of the advertisement dated 07.03.2002 issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in Rozgar Sandesh, applications were invited for appointment to the post of Head Masters of Secondary School. The qualifications requisite for making applications were that as on the last date of receipt of application, applicant must have requisite experience for the purpose of eligibility and also the educational qualification required for the purpose under the Rules. The post of Head Master is a post encadered in the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970. The qualification prescribed for direct recruits is; (a) Bachelors degree or diploma in Education; (b) Experience of teaching Higher Secondary School (HSS) for 5 years or experience of administrative teaching of middle class for 4 years and of teaching Higher Secondary Junior HSS classes for three years. 4. It may be noticed that 50% of the post of Head Master is to be filed by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion. For the promotion also requisite eligibility is that he must be a teacher in Gr. II in Sections C, D and F of the Schedule appended to the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971. The petitioner applied for the post. However, his case was not considered. For the promotion also requisite eligibility is that he must be a teacher in Gr. II in Sections C, D and F of the Schedule appended to the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971. The petitioner applied for the post. However, his case was not considered. Reason for not considering his case was stated to be that he was holding the post of Lab Assistant and it was stated that he did not have the experience of teaching the Secondary Class for 5 years as required for direct recruitment on the post, the petitioner being holder of a post of Teacher Gr. III was not eligible for promotion notwithstanding other qualifications having been fulfilled by him. 5. Aggrieved with the non-consideration of his case for appointment as Head Master, petitioner preferred SBC Writ Petition No. 7031/2003 seeking a mandamus to the respondent RPSC to call the petitioner for interview on the post of Head Master in pursuance of the advertisement vide Annexure-1 and to treat the teaching experience of the petitioner gained by taking Secondary Classes after he acquired necessary educational qualification to take such classes while he was posted as Lab Assistant to be valid experience for recruitment to the post of Headmaster. 6. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 112.2003 relying on a decision of another S.B. at Jaipur Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 421/1997 Manjulata vs. RPSC, decided on 24.01.1997. 7. The learned Counsel for the appellant in appeal has placed reliance on a Bench decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Manohar Singh & Ors., 2003 (1) CDR 839 (Raj.), wherein teaching experience of Senior Secondary or Secondary Classes by a person who has academically qualified to take such classes notwithstanding that he was posted on the lower post has been held to be a valid experience for the purpose of requisite qualification prescribed under rules for direct recruitment to the post of Head Master Secondary Schools (Boys). 8. The fact that the petitioner was holding the requisite qualification when he was asked to take Secondary Classes by the Principal of the School is not in dispute. The fact about the correctness of certificate of experience gained by the petitioner of teaching Secondary Classes since 25.07.1994 has also not been disputed. 9. 8. The fact that the petitioner was holding the requisite qualification when he was asked to take Secondary Classes by the Principal of the School is not in dispute. The fact about the correctness of certificate of experience gained by the petitioner of teaching Secondary Classes since 25.07.1994 has also not been disputed. 9. The case of Manohar Singh (Supra), related to the Teachers, who were posted as Teachers Gr. III. TheCourt after taking into consideration the scheme of the rules, the decision of the Supreme Court in U.P. Public Service Commission vs. Dr. Saad Usmani, AIR 1999 SC 3366 , M.B. Joshi & Ors. vs. Satish Kumar Pandey & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 267 , D. Stephen Joseph vs. UOI & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2602 ; Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 659 and Sheshrao Jangluji Bagda vs. Bhaiyya & Ors., AIR 1991 SC 76 , opined that experience of teaching Secondary or above classes required under the Rules of 1971 for appointment as Junior Lecturer must be obtained after being qualified to take such classes. It was further held that the requirement is not that they must have a teaching experience as a Senior Teacher. The persons, who are having a teaching experience of Secondary or above classes in a recognised institution, can only be of those, who are eligible to take such classes viz. graduate with B. Ed. or diploma in education irrespective of the fact whether he is appointed as Grade III teacher. Only such person who is a graduate and trained for taking Class IX and above under a degree or diploma in Education or Montessori training can be assigned duty to teach secondary classes and if such experience is gained by a person trained to take such classes at recognised institution will satisfy the test. It is not essential that such person must have been appointed as Senior Teacher. But experience of teaching secondary or above classes by a person eligible to be appointed as Senior Teacher is enough. 10. In our opinion, this ratio of the decision in Manohar Singh (Supra), governs the present case also. Lab Assistant is in the category of a Teacher under the Rules of 1971. In Part-F of the Schedule are the posts in the category of General Teachers Gr. 10. In our opinion, this ratio of the decision in Manohar Singh (Supra), governs the present case also. Lab Assistant is in the category of a Teacher under the Rules of 1971. In Part-F of the Schedule are the posts in the category of General Teachers Gr. III in the faculty of Science and the post of Lab Assistant is included amongst posts in Part-F. Wherever the teaching experience is required, the petitioner had acquired the post graduation and B. Ed. Qualification which was requisite for teaching the Secondary and after obtaining such qualification, he has been assigned the duties to teach by the Head of the Institution which was within his competence, therefore, the experience gained by the petitioner after he has qualified to teach the Secondary Classes cannot be called in question merely because of the fact that he was holding the post below that of Senior Teacher. Requirement of experience is not clearly teaching experience while holding the post of Teacher Gr. II. 11. If that were so, holding the post of Teacher Gr. II for five years would have been essential requirement for seeking appointment as Head Master even for direct recruitment. But there is no such requirement that only a person, who is or has held the post of Senior Teacher for five years. 12. The learned Single Judge was in error in not examining the scheme of the Rules and in not considering the fact that the experience gained by the petitioner of teaching Secondary Classes was for requisite period after he has qualified to take such classes. Perhaps, the aforesaid Division bench decision was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. 13. As a matter of fact, the decision in Manjulatas case referred to and relied on by the learned Single Judge did not relate to the controversy of a person acquiring experience of teaching Higher Secondary after he has acquired such qualification. It was a case in which the person was working as Lab Assistant which is a lower post than the post of Senior Teacher and his experience as a Lab Assistant only was the qualification urged to be taken into consideration towards teaching experience. The necessary facts about teaching experience; viz. It was a case in which the person was working as Lab Assistant which is a lower post than the post of Senior Teacher and his experience as a Lab Assistant only was the qualification urged to be taken into consideration towards teaching experience. The necessary facts about teaching experience; viz. that the petitioner actually hold the experience of teaching Secondary Classes or above Classes after he acquired the qualification of taking such classes were not among the facts noticed by the Court in Manjulatas case and did not fell for consideration of the learned Single Judge. The efficacy of experience of taking Secondary Classes by a person employed on the post lower than the Senior Teacher but who had necessary qualification to take Secondary Class, as was the case before the Division Bench in Manjulatas case (Supra). Therefore, the Judgment in Manjulatas case is of little assistance to the respondents. 14. As a result, the appeal is allowed. The Judgment under appeal is set aside. The writ petition is also allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioners application for appointment as Head Master against the advertisement (Annexure-1) and if otherwise found eligible, to give effect to such selection process in accordance with law. The exercise may be carried out within three months. 15. In case, he is found suitable for appointment to the post, the respondent - State Government to give him appropriate appointment and posting. The determination of seniority will depend upon whether he has been selected or appointed. The petitioner if appointed shall not get any arrears of emoluments and the respondents State shall determine the seniority in accordance with the law as if he has been appointed in pursuance of the advertisement in response to which he had applied and from which selection he has wrongly been kept out of consideration affecting his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, according to Rules. 16. No order as to costs.