Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 926 (GAU)

Nurul Islam Laskar v. State of Assam

2019-08-22

N.KOTISWAR SINGH

body2019
ORDER : N. Kotiswar Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 1049/2018, WP(C) No. 1214/2018 and WP (C) No. 1652/2019. Also heard Mr. N. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department for the State; Mr. B.C. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. U.K. Das, learned counsel for private respondent Nos. 6 to 17 in WP(C) No. 1214/2018 and Mrs. K. Devi, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 in WP(C) No. 1214/2018. 2. The core issue involved in this batch of writ petitions relates to essential qualification required for appointment to the posts of Headmaster/Principal of High/Higher Secondary Schools in the State of Assam in connection with which certain advertisement was issued by the State Government. 3. The petitioners applied for the same. The private respondents have also been allowed to apply for the posts by this Court through various orders. However, it has been ordered that their participation would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. Though recruitment process was allowed to be undertaken, the respondent authorities were directed not to declare the results of the said recruitment process. In other words, the recruitment process has not been finalized till date and no recommendation has been made and for obvious reasons, no appointments have been made. 4. As the dispute centres round the issue of eligibility of candidates, it may be appropriate to refer to the relevant rules governing the field. 5. Admittedly, appointment to the said post is governed by Rule 12 of Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 2003 which were framed by the State authority in exercise of the powers conferred under the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 6. Rule 12 of the aforesaid Rules, reads as follows: "1. Recruitment of Principal in the Higher Secondary/Higher Secondary & Multipurpose School and qualification thereof- (1) The posts of the Principal in provincialised Higher Secondary Schools and Higher Secondary and Multipurpose Schools shall be filled up by direct recruitment. (2) The minimum qualifications for appointment to the post of Principal in Higher Secondary School or Higher Secondary and Multipurpose School shall be as follows (i) The candidate must be M.A./M.Sc./M.Com with B.T./B.Ed. degree from any recognized University having uniform good academic career. (2) The minimum qualifications for appointment to the post of Principal in Higher Secondary School or Higher Secondary and Multipurpose School shall be as follows (i) The candidate must be M.A./M.Sc./M.Com with B.T./B.Ed. degree from any recognized University having uniform good academic career. (ii) The candidate must have rendered at least 15 years of service as Post Graduate Teachers or Vice-Principal or both in any of the provincialised Higher Secondary School; or (iii) The candidate must have 17 years of teaching experience as Graduate Teacher in any Higher Secondary/Higher Secondary & Multipurpose School; (iv) The age must not be less than 40 years as on the first January of the year of the recruitment; (v) The candidate must possess commanding personality, administrative ability and leadership skills." 7. We are concerned with the academic qualification required by the candidates i.e. that the candidate must be an MA/M.SC/M.Com. with B.T./B.Ed degree from any recognized University, having uniformly good academic career. 8. The private respondents apparently do not have B.T./B.Ed Degree from any recognized University. But they possess 'Hindi Sikshan Parangat' and 'Hindi Sikshan Nishnat'. The private respondents and others belonging to this category possessing the aforesaid qualifications of 'Hindi Sikshan Parangat' and 'Hindi Sikshan Nishnat' had been making endeavour to compete for appointment to the posts of Headmaster/Principle of the High/Higher Secondary Schools by seeking necessary clarification of the rules. 9. In order to appreciate the scope of the dispute, it may be apposite to refer certain background facts. (i) An Organisation, namely, All Assam Hind Teachers' Association along with another filed a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 6298/2010 before this Court seeking for a declaration from this Court to allow them to participate in the selection process for appointment to the posts of Headmaster/Principal in High/Higher Secondary Schools by claiming that the aforesaid academic qualifications of 'Hindi Sikshan Parangat' and 'Hindi Sikshan Nishnat' are equivalent to B.Ed/M.Ed respectively. (ii) The said plea was not accepted by this Court in the said writ petition, which was disposed of on 17.02.2011. However, this Court also made the observation that the petitioners may approach the authorities for redressal of their grievances and the authorities will consider the same by issuing a speaking order. (iii) It appears that another similarly situated group of persons had approached this Court independently claiming similar relief by filing a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 2207/2011. However, this Court also made the observation that the petitioners may approach the authorities for redressal of their grievances and the authorities will consider the same by issuing a speaking order. (iii) It appears that another similarly situated group of persons had approached this Court independently claiming similar relief by filing a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 2207/2011. The said relief was also not granted by the Court holding that there cannot be any claim of discrimination of the candidates possessing 'Hindi Sikshan Parangat' and 'Hindi Sikshan Nishnat' as against those who possess B.T./B.Ed degree as these are completely different and cannot be construed to be the same for the reasons mentioned in the said order. (iv) Review Petition filed against the said order was rejected. An SLP was unsuccessfully preferred against the rejection of the review petition. (v) Thereafter, the State Government issued an Office Memorandum on 12.4.2012 clarifying the issue as regards recognition of Hindi Sikshan Parangat' and 'Hindi Sikshan Nishnat' examinations conducted by the Kendriya Hindi Shikshan Mandal, Agra by holding that the State Government has decided to recognize the 'Hindi Sikshan Parangat' and 'Hindi Sikshan Nishnat' examination conducted by the Central Institute of Hindi, Agra as equivalent to B.Ed/M.Ed respectively. But it was also clarified that for claiming for appointment to the post of Principal/Headmaster in provincialised High/Higher Secondary Schools, a candidate must have B.Ed/M.Ed along with the Hindi degree. In other words, vide Office Memorandum dated 12.04.2012, the Government recognized the aforesaid Hindi degrees as equivalent to B.Ed/M.Ed but did not recognize the same for the purpose for appointment to the post of Principal/Headmaster in Provincialised Schools. (vi) The aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 12.04.2012, however, was subsequently modified by another Office Memorandum dated 20.09.2012. It was further clarified in the said Office Memorandum dated 20.09.2012 that State Government has decided to recognize the 'Hindi Sikshan Parangat' and 'Hindi Sikshan Nishnat' examinations conducted by the Central Institute of Hindi, Agra to be equivalent to B.Ed/M.Ed only for specific purpose of teaching of Hindi in High/Higher Secondary Schools and cannot be considered as B.Ed/M.Ed for general application. (vii) Thereafter, another writ petition, WP(C) No. 7154/2013 was filed by the All Assam Graduate Hindi Sikshan Parangat (Equivalent B.Ed) Teachers Association seeking a direction from this Court to treat the persons possessing the aforesaid two qualifications in Hindi as equivalent to B.Ed/M.Ed for all purposes, which, however, was declined by this Court vide order dated 09.12.2013 on the ground that this matter has been decided by the Division Bench of this Court earlier. (viii) The appeal, WA No. 101/2014 preferred against the said order was not also entertained. The SLP preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the said decision of the Division Bench was also not entertained as per order dated 12.09.2014. (ix) In spite of the setbacks received by the persons having aforesaid Hindi qualifications, they have continued with their efforts and had been approaching the authorities for making the said qualifications equivalent to B.Ed/M.Ed. (x) Ultimately, the State Government taking into consideration the claim made by them, issued the Office Memorandum dated 30.11.2016 by which the State Government decided to recognize the 'Hindi Sikshan Parangat' and 'Hindi Sikshan Nishnat' awarded by the Central Institute of Hindi, Agra as equivalent of B.Ed/M/Ed respectively for the purpose of promotion of Hindi teachers to the posts of Headmaster/Principal of High/Higher Secondary Schools. In other words, by the Office Memorandum dated 30.11.2016, the endeavour made by the persons possessing the aforesaid Hindi academic qualifications for treating these to be equivalent to B.Ed/M.Ed was ultimately successful. Thus, as on now, any such applicant having the 'Hindi Sikshan Parangat' and 'Hindi Sikshan Nishnat' qualifications would become eligible for appointment to the post of Headmaster/Principal in the High/Higher Secondary Schools in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 30.11.2016. (xi) However, though the relief claimed by those petitioners referred to above had been ultimately granted by the Government, it seems it suffered from certain serious defects which has led the present petitioners to challenge the said Office Memorandum dated 30.11.2016. 10. (xi) However, though the relief claimed by those petitioners referred to above had been ultimately granted by the Government, it seems it suffered from certain serious defects which has led the present petitioners to challenge the said Office Memorandum dated 30.11.2016. 10. It is the case of the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions that though the State Government might have taken a decision to recognize the 'Hindi Sikshan Parangat' and 'Hindi Sikshan Nishnat' qualifications as equivalent to B.Ed/M.Ed for the purpose of appointment/promotion to the posts of Headmaster/Principal of High/Higher Secondary Schools, since Rule 12 of the Assam Secondary (Provincialised) Service Rules, 2003 as mentioned above has not been amended, this will not make them eligible for appointment to the post of Headmaster/Principal of High/Higher Secondary Schools unless they have B.T./B.Ed from a recognized University. 11. Admittedly, the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 30.11.2016 was not issued by invoking the power conferred under Proviso to the Article 309 of the Constitution of India and it is merely an administrative order. On the other hand, the Service Rules governing the appointment to the post of Headmaster/Principal of High/Higher Secondary schools, i.e., the Service Rules of 2003 were framed under Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 12. The question which arises for consideration is whether the aforesaid Office Memorandum issued on 30.11.2016 can be read into the Rules. Accordingly, the issue is whether the Office Memorandum dated 30.11.2016 as it stands today can be said to be part of the aforesaid Service Rules of 2003, so as to make any candidate possessing 'Hindi Sikshan Parangat' and 'Hindi Sikshan Nishnat' eligible for appointment to the posts of Headmaster/Principal of High/Higher Secondary Schools. 13. It has been contended by Mr. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioners that since the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 30.11.2016 was not issued by invoking Proviso to the Article 309 of the Constitution of India, it cannot have any effect as far as Rule 12 of the aforesaid Service Rules, 2003 is concerned. It has been submitted that Rule 12 as referred to above is very clear as to the academic qualification required for appointment to the post of Headmaster/Principal of High/Higher Secondary Schools. 14. It has been submitted that Rule 12 as referred to above is very clear as to the academic qualification required for appointment to the post of Headmaster/Principal of High/Higher Secondary Schools. 14. It has been submitted that reading of sub-Clause 1 of Clause 2 of Rule 12 makes it clear that there is no ambiguity about the requirements of the education qualification for appointment to the post of Headmaster/Principal as mentioned therein. It has been also submitted that no provision has been made for taking into account any "equivalent" degree as the said expression has been specifically omitted from the Rules. It is only when there is any doubt or ambiguity about the Rules, such doubt and ambiguity can be cleared by an executive instruction issued in this regard. In the present case, there is no doubt and ambiguity in the provision prescribing academic qualification for the post of Headmaster/Principal of High/Higher Secondary Schools and, as such, the aforesaid Office Memorandum cannot be read into the Rules to clarify the aforesaid provisions under Rule 12, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 15. It has been submitted that it would have been a different matter if the Office Memorandum had been issued by invoking Article 309 of the Constitution of India, in which event, it could have been treated as part of the Service Rules. Accordingly, it has been submitted that reading of the Rule 12 would make it very clear that a person who does not have B.T./B.Ed from any recognized University cannot be eligible for appointment to the post of Headmaster/Principle of High/Higher Secondary Schools, inspite of the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 30.11.2016. 16. On the other hand, it has been submitted by Mr. Das, learned senior counsel for the private respondents that it is settled law that the Office Memorandum can clarify any provision of the Service Rules and as such, since the Government after careful consideration of all aspects of the matter had taken a specific decision to recognize 'Hindi Sikshan Parangat' and 'Hindi Sikshan Nishnat' qualifications as equivalent to B.Ed/M.Ed degree for appointment to the post of Headmaster/Principal of High/Higher Secondary Schools, any such candidate having 'Hindi Sikshan Parangat' and 'Hindi Sikshan Nishnat' qualifications will be eligible for appointment to the post of Headmaster/Principal of the High/Higher Secondary School. 17. 17. In order to substantiate his submission, the learned senior counsel for the private respondents has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in O.P. Lothar & Ors. Vs. Satish Kumar Kakkar & Ors., 2001 (3) SCC 110 in which it has been held that though Rules framed under the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India cannot be amended except in accordance with the procedure laid down thereunder where a clarification is made by the State Government, it can be construed as an amendment to the Rules. In this regard, learned senior counsel for the private respondents has referred to Para Nos. 8, 9, 11 and 14 of the aforesaid judgment which are reproduced herein below. "8. The question that arises for our consideration is whether the clarification issued by the Govt., of Haryana by an executive order is proper and valid and whether it amounts to amendment of the Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution. If it is an amendment to the Rules made under Article 309, a further question arises whether by an executive order, can such rules be amended. 9. Normally, the Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309, cannot be amended except in accordance with procedure laid down therein. But in the instant case, the question is whether a clarification issued by the Govt., could be construed as an amendment to the rules. Even under the rules, it is specifically stated that a Degree or Diploma in Electrical Engineering from a recognised university or its equivalent would be the requisite qualification for promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineer. In the Rules, some of the recognised universities are also mentioned and admittedly, these institutions are not awarding any Diploma. The rules say that equivalent qualification also would be considered. There is nothing wrong in the appointing authority issuing a clarification as to what would be the equivalent qualification for the purpose of appointment. When the universities do not offer the Diplomas prescribed under the Rules, the rule itself becomes meaningless and nugatory. Under the Rules, the candidates are asked to produce a certificate which is neither in existence nor awarded. It was at this juncture that the Govt., issued a clarification that the Diploma awarded by recognised institutions, which are affiliated to the State Board of Technical Education in Haryana, would be considered as equivalent. 11. Under the Rules, the candidates are asked to produce a certificate which is neither in existence nor awarded. It was at this juncture that the Govt., issued a clarification that the Diploma awarded by recognised institutions, which are affiliated to the State Board of Technical Education in Haryana, would be considered as equivalent. 11. In the instant case also, the Govt. Order passed on 7th October, 1999 was only supplemental to the Rules already framed under the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. It does not have the effect of altering the Rules nor is it inconsistent therewith. The relevant rule in fact provides that Diploma holders are entitled to be promoted to the cadre of Executive Engineer. If this rule, without the present clarification, is allowed to operate, no officers in the cadre of Assistant Engineers would be entitled to get promotion as they are not holders of Diploma from a recognised university. That would be a virtual denial of opportunity of promotion to these officers. The rule does not intend that the Diploma holders shall not be promoted to the cadre of Executive Engineer. To obviate this difficulty, the clarification was issued. It is also pertinent to note that even the 1997 Rules give the power to Govt., to relax the Rules. Rules 17 and 18 of 1997 Rules thus confer power of relaxation and for making special provisions/special terms and conditions as may be deemed to be expedient. 14. But in the present case, by issuing the clarification no vested rights of any person were taken away or impaired, much less that of the first respondent. By this clarification, it was made clear that Diploma issued by the State Technical Education Department would be equivalent to a Diploma issued from a recognised university. Even without this explanation, both Diploma-holders and Degree-holders having eight years' service as Asstt. Engineer are entitled to be promoted to the cadre of Executive Engineer. This clarification has been issued by the State Govt., after taking into consideration all relevant circumstances, including the fact that no university in Haryana grants Diploma in Electrical Engineering. When expert qualification is fixed by competent authority, ordinarily court shall not interfere with such matters. In University of Mysore & Anr. vs. C.D. Govinda Rao & Anr. This clarification has been issued by the State Govt., after taking into consideration all relevant circumstances, including the fact that no university in Haryana grants Diploma in Electrical Engineering. When expert qualification is fixed by competent authority, ordinarily court shall not interfere with such matters. In University of Mysore & Anr. vs. C.D. Govinda Rao & Anr. (1964) 4 SCR 575 , it was observed that normally it is wise and safe for the courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally can be." Accordingly, relying on the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, learned senior counsel for the private respondents has submitted that aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 30.11.2016 can be considered to be an amendment of the Rules by way of making clarification as it merely supplements the rules clarifying the vagueness in the Rule and as such, does not call for an interference from this Court. 18. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The settled legal proposition is that, rules made under Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India can be amended by the procedure mentioned thereunder i.e. by the another notification or order issued under Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and not by a mere Office Memorandum. Of course, it is also well settled that wherever there is any ambiguity or loophole in the Rules, the same can be clarified or rectified by an executive order for which, resorting to Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India may not necessary. 19. In the present case, as noted above, the aforesaid Service Rules of 2003 were framed by invoking powers under Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, and as such, any changes to be brought in the said Service Rules, notification or order can be done by another order issued by invoking Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. However, if it relates to clarification of any ambiguity in the Rules, the same can be done by issuing an Office Memorandum in that regard, for which it may not be necessary to resort to procedure provided under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 20. However, if it relates to clarification of any ambiguity in the Rules, the same can be done by issuing an Office Memorandum in that regard, for which it may not be necessary to resort to procedure provided under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 20. In the present case, admittedly, the Office Memorandum dated 30.11.2016 was not issued by invoking Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, and, as such, this certainly cannot form part of the Service Rules of 2003. However, as mentioned above, this Office Memorandum dated 30.11.2016 can form part of the Rules if it merely clarifies certain ambiguity and doubts in the Service Rules. Therefore, this Court has to examine as to whether the Office Memorandum dated 30.11.2016 seeks to clarify any doubt or ambiguity, in which event, it can be treated to be of the Rules as also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case in O.P. Lothar (supra). 21. Rule 12 in issue has specifically mentioned the educational qualification required for appointment to the post of Headmaster/Principal in High/Higher Secondary Schools, which are as follows: "(i) The candidate must be MA/M.Sc./M.Com. with B.T./B.Ed. degree from any recognized University having uniform good academic career. (ii) The candidate must have rendered at least 5 years of service as Post Graduate Teachers or Vice-Principal or both in any of the provincialised Higher Secondary School; or (iii) The candidate must have 17 years of teaching experience as Graduate Teacher in any Higher Secondary/Higher Secondary & Multipurpose School; (iv) The age must not be less than 40 years as on the first January of the year of the recruitment; (v) The candidate must possess commanding personality, administrative ability and leadership skills." It would be clearly evident that the Rule making authorities have not used the expression or the words "or equivalent" while laying down the essential qualifications. The Office Memorandum dated 30.11.2016 could have clarified in such a situation, as to which are those qualifications which are equivalent to B.T./B.Ed under the Rules. However, in absence of use of any such expression or words "equivalent", this Court is afraid, the aforesaid case of O.P. Lothar (supra) would not be applicable in the present case. 22. The Office Memorandum dated 30.11.2016 could have clarified in such a situation, as to which are those qualifications which are equivalent to B.T./B.Ed under the Rules. However, in absence of use of any such expression or words "equivalent", this Court is afraid, the aforesaid case of O.P. Lothar (supra) would not be applicable in the present case. 22. This Court holds so for the reason that in the aforesaid case of O.P. Lothar (supra) the rules in issue specifically provide the expression "or its equivalent" relating to the academic qualifications so specifically mentioned in the related rules, which is also clear from para No. 7 of the aforesaid judgment, which reads as follows: "7. We heard the learned counsel on either side. It is true that as per the special rules framed under Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the requisite qualification for the purpose of promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineer is Degree or Diploma in Electrical Engineering from a recognised university or its equivalent. The learned counsel for the State of Haryana submitted that there is no university in the State of Haryana which awards Diploma in Electrical Engineering and that such Diplomas are awarded by various recognised institutions which are affiliated to and approved by the State Board of Technical Education in Haryana. It is argued that the first respondent had also acquired a three years' Diploma in Electrical Engineering granted by the State Board of Technical Education, though he has passed A.M.I.E. Examination, which is also not issued from a recognised university. It is argued that the first respondent had also acquired a three years' Diploma in Electrical Engineering granted by the State Board of Technical Education, though he has passed A.M.I.E. Examination, which is also not issued from a recognised university. It was submitted that realising this position, the Govt., of Haryana issued an executive order on 7th October, 1999 by way of clarification wherein it is stated that no university situated in the State of Haryana awards Diploma in Electrical Engineering and that the Diploma in Electrical Engineering is awarded only by the State Board of Technical Education, Haryana, and no requirement of equivalent qualification has been prescribed for such a course (Diploma) in the State of Haryana; the three years' Diplomas awarded by the State Board of Technical Education, Haryana, are duly approved by the All India Council for Technical Education also." In para No. 7 of the aforesaid decision, it has been mentioned that as per the Rules framed under Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the requisite qualification for the purpose of promotion to cadre of Executive Engineer is a Degree in Electrical Engineering recognized University or its equivalent. Thus, as to which are those degrees, that are equivalent to degree in Electrical Engineering was sought to be clarified by issuing an executive instruction as mentioned in para Nos. 8, 9, 10 of the judgment as quoted above. In the aforesaid context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the Government issues a clarification that certain diploma awarded by the Institution would be considered to be equivalent to degree, the said clarification even if not issued under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, can be said to be merely clarification and can be deemed to be part of the rules. 23. In the present case, as mentioned above, the rule making authorities have not used the expression "or its equivalent", in the Service Rules of 2003, in which event, there is no scope for making a clarification, as the rule itself is unambiguous and clear to the extent that only those candidates who have B.T./B.Ed degree from any recognized University shall be eligible. In other words, any candidate who does not possess B.Ed/B.T. degree from any recognized University cannot be eligible for appointment to the post of Headmaster/Principal. In other words, any candidate who does not possess B.Ed/B.T. degree from any recognized University cannot be eligible for appointment to the post of Headmaster/Principal. The need to clarify as to which qualifications can be considered to be equivalent to B.T./B.Ed. does not arise as the rules do not provide for such contingency. 24. It may be also noted that the rule making authorities were already aware of the significance of possession of the said qualification. In para (iii) of Schedule II of the aforesaid Rules, the minimum qualification and professional qualification for appointment to the post of Hindi Teachers have been mentioned. It has been specifically mentioned that a "Parangat" is to be treated as B.Ed, degree only for the purpose for teaching Hindi. In other words, the rule making authorities were fully aware of the limited application of the qualification of "Parangat" and accordingly, confined its equivalence with B.Ed degree only for the purpose of teaching Hindi, i.e., for appointment to the post of a Hindi teacher. In other words, since the rule making authorities were conscious of the limited scope of the qualification of 'Hindi Sikshan Parangat' by confining it to be equivalent only for the purpose of the teaching Hindi, it would be evident that the rule making authorities did not wish to make it equivalent to B.Ed., for the purpose of appointment to any other posts other than teaching Hindi. 25. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, this Court is of the view that aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 30.11.2016 even though it clarified that the 'Hindi Sikshan Parangat' and 'Hindi Sikshan Nishnat' degrees are equivalent to B.Ed./M.Ed. respectively for the purpose of appointment to the post of Headmaster/Principal of High/Higher Secondary Schools, since the aforesaid Office Memorandum was not issued under Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, it cannot form part of the Service Rules of 2003 Further, as the rule making authorities have used the expression "or its equivalent", the question of ascertaining equivalent qualifications to B.Ed or M.Ed, does not arise. Accordingly, this Court would hold that till such appropriate amendment is made in Rule 12 of the aforesaid Service Rules, 2003, mere possession of "Hindi Sikshan Parangat" and "Hindi Sikshan Nishnat" cannot make a candidate eligible for appointment to the post of Headmaster/Principal of High/Higher Secondary Education. Accordingly, this Court would hold that till such appropriate amendment is made in Rule 12 of the aforesaid Service Rules, 2003, mere possession of "Hindi Sikshan Parangat" and "Hindi Sikshan Nishnat" cannot make a candidate eligible for appointment to the post of Headmaster/Principal of High/Higher Secondary Education. Merely because one possess 'Hindi Sikshan Parangat' or 'Hindi Sikshan Nishnat' qualification, he cannot be treated to be eligible for appointment to the post of Headmaster/Principal of High/Higher Secondary Schools in spite of the Office Memorandum dated 30.11.2016 for the reasons discussed above. 26. Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of with the observation that only such candidates who possess B.T./B.Ed degree from any recognized University in addition to the qualification mentioned under the Service Rules of 2003 will be eligible for appointment to the post of Headmaster/Principal of High/Higher Secondary Schools. However, this observation/finding by this Court will not come in the way of the authorities to make necessary amendment to the rules to make those candidates having 'Hindi Sikshan Parangat' and 'Hindi Sikshan Nishnat' qualifications also to be eligible for appointment to the post of Headmaster/Principal of High/Higher Secondary Schools. 27. Any other issue raised in this petition and not decided on merit, is left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings. It has been stated at the Bar that the selection process has been already virtually concluded but results have not been declared. Since this Court has given a finding that those candidates who do not possess B.Ed/M.Ed degree will not be eligible for appointment to the post of Headmaster/Principal of the High/Higher Secondary Schools, it is left open to the State authorities to take any such steps or pass appropriate orders before they declare the result of the selection process and to proceed to fill the advertised posts of Headmaster/Principal of High/Higher Secondary Schools. 28. It has been submitted at the Bar that some of the candidates have also approached this Court by filing a writ petition, WP(C) No. 3635/2015, for amendment of the Service Rules of 2003 to make 'Hindi Sikshan Parangat' and 'Hindi Sikshan Nishnat' degrees equivalent to B.Ed/M.Ed degrees, before the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 30.11.2016 was issued. This Court however, would not like to make any observation as regards the said pending writ petition, which is not before this Court, in view of the decision already arrived at as mentioned above.