SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Deputy Director of Public Instruction and District Recruitment Authority and
Others
Vs
Shaik Moula and Another
Appeal (Civil) 5152 of 2006 (Arising Out of Slp (C) No. 23576 of 2004)
(Arijit Pasayat and L. S. Panta, JJ)
22.11.2006
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench of the
Karnataka High Court dismissing writ petition filed by the appellants.
Challenge before the High Court was to the order passed by the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal (in short the 'Tribunal').
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:-
Respondent no.1 filed an application before the Tribunal under Section 19 of
the Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985 (in short the 'Act') praying to quash
the selection made by the appellants and for a direction to include his name
for selection under category IIB (reserved category) and to issue order of
appointment as primary school teacher in the Hindi subject. The applicant-respondent
no.1 herein had filed an application for appointment as primary school
Assistant Teacher (Hindi) in Bangalore Rural District. The same was rejected on
the ground that he did not possess the requisite qualification. It was pointed
out that the requisite qualifications as indicated in the Notification
No.C1.Pra.Sha.Shi.Ne/01/2001-02 dated 8.9.2001 are as follows:
"1. Must have passed PUC and TCH or equivalent examinations
But the candidates who had taken admission to TCH course prior to 1989
will be eligible if they have passed SSLC and TCH or equivalent
examination".
According to the appellants, the respondent no.1 did not have the qualification
of TCH. He had passed the examination which is equivalent to Teacher Training
Certificate (TTC). The Tribunal held that the respondent no.1 possessed the
requisite qualification. For that purpose reliance was placed on proceedings of
the Government of Karnataka (Order No.EF.43 PHN 72 Bangalore, Dated: the
24/26th August, 1974).
Challenging order of the Tribunal, a writ petition was filed before the High
Court reiterating the stand that the qualification possessed by the respondent
no.1 was not equivalent to TCH but was equivalent to TTC. The plea was rejected
holding that bare reading of the Government's order dated 24/26th August, 1974
indicated that the qualification possessed by the respondent no.1 was
equivalent to TCH.
Leaned counsel for the appellants submitted that both the Tribunal and the High
Court fell into grave error in coming to the conclusion that the qualification
possessed was equivalent to TCH with reference to the Government's order dated
24/26th August, 1974. In that order there is no indication even in the manner
as decided by the Tribunal or the High Court.
Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that bare
reading of the aforesaid order makes the position clear that the courses
indicated in the Government order had to be treated as equivalent courses for
the purpose of teaching Hindi in high school or secondary school and training
institutions. That being so, the qualification was applicable for the purpose
of appointment to the primary school.
It is to be noted that the Tribunal was really confused as to what was the
subject matter of dispute. It is clear from the following observation of the
Tribunal:
"Undisputedly, the documents produced by the applicant demonstrate that
he has passed SSLC in the year 1990 (Annexure - A2, is the Marks Card), PUC in
the year 1993 (Annexure - 'A4' is the Marks Card) and Hindi Uttama of Mysore
Hindi Prachar Parishad (Annexure - 'A4' is the Certificate). The applicant has
not passed TCH. But his case is that a pass in Hindi Shikshana Praveen Pariksha
of Kendriya Hindi Shikshana Mandal Agra is recognized by the Government of
Karnataka as equivalent to TCH and as such the applicant satisfies the
requirements of education qualification. In the circumstances the only question
is whether Hindi Shikshana Praveen Pariksha passed by the applicant is
equivalent to Teachers Training Certificate?"
(Underlined for emphasis)
The High Court proceeded on the basis as if the Government's order dated
24/26th August, 1974 made the position clear that the qualification possessed
by respondent no.1 was equivalent to TCH. There is really no such indication.
Whether a particular qualification is equivalent to another has to be
specifically indicated. That has not been done. Inferential conclusion, that
too without appreciating the nature of the controversy, makes decisions of the
Tribunal and the High Court vulnerable. They are accordingly set aside.
The appeal is allowed but without any order as to costs.