Allahabad High Court
Smt. Basanti Gaur vs Regional Inspectress Of Girls' ... on 10 February, 1987
Equivalent citations: AIR1987ALL191, AIR 1987 ALLAHABAD 191, 1987 LAB. I. C. 741, 1987 ALL. L. J. 377, (1987) UPLBEC 121, 1987 ED CAS 33
Author: K.J. Shetty
Bench: K. Jagannatha Shetty
JUDGMENT K.J. Shetty, C.J.
1. This case has come before us upon a reference by a Division Bench which felt that the decision rendered by another Division Bench in the case of Vidya Sagar Sharma v. Deputy Director of Education, Meerut, Writ Petn. No. 6449 of 1974 decided on December 17, 1977 did not lay down the law correctly and the same requires reconsideration.
2. The controversy raised in this case centres round Clauses (1) to (3) of Regulation 6, Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Before analysing the said provisions we may briefly set out the essential facts.
The petitioner as well as Smt. Pushpa Nair (respondent No. 3) were L.T, Grade teachers in the Maharaja Agrasen Girls Intermediate College. Deoria. Respondent No. 3 was a graduate with Economics as one of the subjects. The petitioner was also graduate, but with different subjects. Both have since passed M. A. in Economics by correspondence course. Respondent No. 3 has been teaching Economics as L.T. grade teacher. But the petitioner has had no such experience. She was teaching English throughout. In length of service in this grade, the petitioner was admittedly senior to Smt. Pushpa Nair. In 1979 a vacancy arose in the lecturer's grade for teaching Economics in Intermediate classes. Lecturer's Grade is the next higher grade to the L.T. grade. The appointment was required to be made by promotion on the basis of merit. The Managing Committee of the institution considered the cases of the petitioner and Smt. Pushpa Nair. Upon comparison of their academic qualifications and teaching experience etc., the Committee passed a resolution proposing respondent No. 3 for appointment to the post. The same has been sent for approval of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools ('R.I.G.S.' for short). The latter accepted the proposal whereupon the respondent No. 3 has been appointed as Lecturer in Economics.
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the Managing Committee as well as the approval accorded by the R.I.G.S. the petitioner filed this petition on the ground, among others, that since she was senior to Smt. Pushpa Nair, she had a preferential claim for being, promoted in view of Clause (3) of Regulation 6. It was asserted that the petitioner undeniably had the requisite minimum academic qualifications being M.A. in Economics. Therefore, she ought to have been preferred even though she had had no teaching experience in Economics.
4. The Division Bench referring the case is of opinion that teaching experience in the concerned subject in the L.T. grade is not an essential qualification for appointment in the Lecturer's Grade. For want of such experience, the preferential claim of a senior teacher for promotion could not be ignored. If the teacher possesses the minimum qualification and also seniority, he or she ought to be promoted. This is how the learned Judges have observed.
"In our opinion, if a teacher in the L.T. grade possesses the prescribed minimum educational qualification of having a Master's degree in the subject, in which there is a vacancy in the lecturer's grade, he or she would be entitled to promotion provided he or she fulfils the other requirements enumerated in Clauses (1), (2) and (3) of Regulation 6. There is nothing in these clauses of Regulation 6 to warrant the possession of experience in teaching in that subject. That very fact that a person possesses the postgraduate degree in the subject concerned is sufficient to consider him fit for promotion to the lecturer's grade."
5. For appreciating the question raised, it will now be necessary to examine the relevant statutory provisions. Clauses (1), (2) and (3) of Regulation 6 read as follows :
"(1) Where any vacancy in the lecturer's grade in the L.T. Grade as determined under Regulation 6, is to be filled by promotion, all teachers working in the L.T, or C.T. grade, as the case may be, having a minimum of five years continuous substantive service to their credit on the date of occurrence of the vacancy shall be considered for promotion by the Committee of Management without their having to apply for the same provided they possess the prescribed minimum qualifications for teaching the subject in which the teacher in the lecturer's grade or in the L.T. grade is required.
(2) Selection for promotion to the next higher grade shall be made on the basis of service standing, achievements in service, academic qualifications and integrity.
(3) Subject to Clause (2) where more than one teacher in the L.T. grade are eligible for promotion to the post of lecturer in any subject preference shall be given to the teacher who is seniormost amongst them in service in that grade."
A bare perusal of these provisions indicates that Clause (1) deals with 'Eligibility' of candidates for consideration for promotion. It lays down that for promotion to the lecturer's grade, all teachers working in the L.T. grade with a minimum of five years continuous substantive service to their credit on the date of occurrence of the vacancy shall be considered for promotion provided they possess the prescribed minimum qualifications for teaching the concerned subject.
Clause (2) provides for assessment of 'Suitability' of candidates. It furnishes criteria or the basis for judging the suitability of eligible candidates. It has to be judged with due regard to service standing, achievements in service, academic qualifications and integrity of the candidates. Seniority in the grade alone does not, there fore, entitle a teacher to promotion to the lecturer's grade.
The selection for appointment is required to be made on the basis of merit and not on the basis of seniority.
Clause (3) is subject to Clause (2). It provides that where there are more than one teacher in the L.T. Grade eligible for promotion to the post of lecturer in any subject, preference shall be given to the teacher who is the seniormost amongst them in that grade. The word 'Eligible' used in this clause appears to be inaccurate. It ought to be "suitable". In service matters, the eligibility of a candidate is the primary requirement for consideration and then comes the suitability for appointment. Two words should not be equated with each other. Clause (3) has been expressly made subject to Clause (2). The words "subject to" has reference to effectuating the intention of the law and the correct meaning is "conditional upon" see K.R.C.S. Balakrishna Chetty v. State of Madras, AIR 1961 SC 1152. Clause (3) could, therefore, operate in favour of the seniormost teacher, where he is found suitable for selection under Clause (2). In Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1978 SC 1910, the Supreme Court explained the principle of such selection as follows :
"The principle is that when claim of officers to selection post is under consideration, seniority should not be regarded except where the merit of the officers is judged to be equal and no other criterion is, therefore, available.
6. Having set out the scheme provided under Clauses (i) to (3) of Regulation 6, we now proceed to examine the contentions urged for the parties. The main controversy debated at the Bar was that in assessing the suitability for promotion of a teacher, the teaching experience gained by him in the relevant subject cannot be taken into consideration. It was urged that it is not a relevant factor that could fall under Clause (2) of Regulation 6. To understand better, we may explain the contention with an illustration: 'A' is a teacher teaching a particular subject in the L.T. grade, i.e., up to class Xth. In that subject there is a vacancy in the lecturer's grade who is required to teach in classes XIth and XIIth. His case comes up for consideration for selection to the lecturer's grade. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the teaching experience gained by 'A' in that subject in the L.T. grade is not relevant for consideration. No weightage can be given to 'A'. Nor any plus point can be added in his favour In assessing the comparative merits.
7. The contention urged, perhaps, has force if the teaching experience gained by a teacher in the concerned subject is not relevant for consideration while judging the merit or suitability of teachers for promotion to higher grade. The merit of a teacher for promotion has to be determined with due regard to:
(i) Service Standing.
(ii) Achievements in service.
(iii) Academic qualifications, and (iv) Integrity.
Let us start the process of elimination; and take the last item first for consideration---
'Integrity'. This word obviously cannot include teaching experience of a teacher in the relevant subject. 'Integrity' is essentially the moral conduct and principles. It is a quality of being unimpaired in the world shaken by unethical standards
(ii) 'Service standing': Generally we take it that 'service standing' means the length of service. Number of years put in by a teacher since he joined the service. The counsel for the respondent, however, urged that this term may take within its fold also the teaching experience when it refers to teachers. We express no opinion on this aspect since we do not want to base our judgment on doubtful concept
(iii) 'Achievement in service' -- These ; words are wide enough to cover every attribute that could make one a successful teacher or distinguished teacher. It may include ability, skill or talent in teaching or guiding the students. It may also include administrative capacity. To put it shortly, it is an accomplishment in service. Obviously, it cannot include mere teaching experience of a teacher in the concerned subject.
(iv) 'Academic qualifications': -- Let us first examine the meaning of the word 'Academic". In Black's Law Dictionary (Fifth Edition) page 11 it is as follows : --
"Pertaining to college, university or preparatory school."
In the same dictionary at page 1116 the meaning of the word "Qualification" has been given thus:--
"The possession by an individual of qualities, properties, or circumstances, natural or adventitious, which are inherently or legally necessary to render him eligible to fill an office or to perform a public duty or function."
In Mozley and Witeley's Law Dictionary also, the term 'Qualification' has been described as:
"That which makes a person eligible to do certain act or to hold office."
8. It will be seen that the term academic qualification is wide enough to include the entire range of attributes or qualities which make a person eligible to do a certain act or to hold office. Those attributes or qualities may be inherent in the person or legally necessary to render him eligible to fill an office or perform a public duty. Teaching experience in the subject in which the lecturer's appointment has to be made cannot but be such an attribute. It is indeed inherently necessary to take up the greater responsibilities in the higher classes. It is absolutely necessary to bring out an excellence from the teacher for the benefit of students. It is an attribute which always goes with the teacher. Experience of having taught the subject for any length of time should, in our opinion, be regarded as a qualification pertaining to academics.
9. The term "academic qualification" is not to be restricted just to degrees or diplomas possessed by a teacher. There is no discernible compulsion either in the language or context of the Statute to ascribe such a narrower meaning to the term. The Rule making authority was not unaware of this. In Appendix A to the regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act lays down the minimum qualifications for various categories of teachers including Headmasters and Principals. Teaching experience has also been prescribed therein for Principals of Intermediate colleges as one of the minimum qualifications. While diplomas or degrees in the subject are undoubtedly academic qualifications, they are not exhaustive of the qualifications pertaining to academic posts. The fact that a teacher has done some research in the subject or contributed articles on the subject in recognised journals or had teaching experience in the subject over a period are equally academic qualifications relevant in the context.
10. The view which we are inclined to take finds support from two decisions of this Court. In Vidya Sagar Sharma (supra) in which a Division Bench of this Court while construing an identical provision observed thus:
"Learned counsel for the respondents then urged that Regulation 18 as contained in Chapter III does not lay down that the teaching experience should be in the subject concerned for which the appointment may be made. On a reasonable interpretation of Regulation 18, it would always be conducive to efficiency in teaching if the teaching experience is in the subject concerned for which vacancy may have occurred. A person teaching Biology cannot be better equipped to teach Economics than a person teaching Economics."
To the same effect are the observations in the case of Shamsher Bahadur Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, Mirzapur, 1985 UP LB and EC 592 at p. 594 : (1985 Lab IC NOC (All) 31).
"It is thus apparent that of a selection for promotion to the next higher grade, seniority is not the sole criterion. It is the cumulative assessment of various factors including seniority, such as achievements in service, academic qualifications and integrity on the basis of which selection is made. The mere fact, therefore, that the petitioner was senior to Sri Suraj Prasad Yadav would not by itself entitle him to be promoted to the post of lecturer in Civics................. Further it was found that the petitioner had absolutely no teaching experience in civics, the subject in regard to which the appointment had to be made. The petitioner on the other hand had experience of teaching only in Science subjects. On the contrary, Sri Yadav was found to have had a better record of service, and had, besides, the experience of teaching in Civics in the Intermediate classes. For all these reasons Sri Yadav was preferred to the petitioner."
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that the interpretation that we are inclined to give to Clause (2) shall put senior teachers in the L.T. grade at considerable disadvantage in the matter of promotion to the post of lecturer.
The submission in our opinion, is devoid of any merit. A teacher in the L.T. Grade aspiring for promotion should equip himself academically by obtaining the Post-graduate degrees in the subject which he has been teaching or has taught in the past. He need not run after Post-graduate degrees in the subject with which he is not familiar or proficient. We are told that Post-graduate degrees could be obtained by teachers in this part of the country even through correspondence course. That being so, if a teacher wants a quick promotion he ought to go for Post-graduate degree in the subject given to him for teaching in the L.T. grade. That would benefit the students also. It must not be forgotten that the appointments of teachers, lecturers or professors in the educational institutions are primarily for the benefit of students. Experienced teachers with devotion to duty are the primary need of the hour. They would be assets to the Institution.
12. Reverting to the facts of the case, the Managing Committee in preferring Smt. Pushpa Nair respondent No. 3, took into account the fact that she possessed Master's Degree in Economics, History, Sociology and Hindi. She also had Economics as one of her subjects in B.A. In addition, she has been teaching Economics to classes IX, X, XI and XII right from the beginning. The resolution of the Managing Committee further states that the result of her students was always excellent and she was hard working, intelligent and devoted teacher. She was obedient and extended full co-operation to the Institution in every field of work. As regards the petitioner, the resolution states that she has never taught Economics in any of the classes.
Nor was Economics one of the subjects in which she did her B.A. She has had no teaching experience in the subject for which appointment had to be made.
We are clearly of the opinion that the facts which were taken into account by the Managing Committee in preferring Smt. Pushpa Nair were relevant and germane to the criteria laid down in Clause (2) of Regulation 6. The R.I.G.S. did not, therefore, commit any illegality in approving the proposal of the Managing Committee.
In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.