Kerala High Court
Ahammed Koya vs The Secretary, Ministry Of Human ... on 29 July, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(3)KLT340
Author: A.K. Basheer
Bench: A.K. Basheer
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.
1. Is the amendment of the Rules by which a Post-graduate Degree was prescribed as an essential qualification for promotion to the post of Headmaster, Senior Basic School arbitrary and illegal? This question has been answered in the negative by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioners have approached this Court through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The relevant facts may be briefly noticed.
2. The 41 petitioners are trained graduates. They are working in different schools under the Lakshadweep Administration.
3. On January 25, 1996, the Administration made an amendment in the statutory rules governing promotion to the post of Headmaster etc. It was inter alia provided that a trained graduate with a Post-graduate qualification and five years regular service shall be eligible for promotion to the post of Headmaster. The petitioners represented. The claim having not been accepted, they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. It was contended that the amendment of the rules was arbitrary and violative of Articles l4and 16 of the Constitution.
4. The Tribunal considered the matter. It noticed that the Central Government had constituted the Chattopadhyaya Commission. The Commission had recommended a Post-graduate degree as an essential qualification for the grant of the higher scales of pay. The recommendations of the Commission were accepted by the Government. As a result, the pay scales of various categories of posts were revised. The Headmasters of the Senior Basic Schools were placed in the same scale of pay as the Higher Secondary School Teachers. The essential qualification for appointment to the post of teachers of Higher Secondary classes was a Post-graduate degree with B.Ed. Thus, even for the post of Headmaster which was in the same scale of pay as that of a Teacher for the Higher Secondary classes, a Post-graduate Degree was prescribed. This was found to be just and reasonable. Thus, the Tribunal dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the petitioners have approached this Court through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
5. Mr. Sugathan, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the Lakshadweep Administration is following the rules of the Kerala State. The syllabus for the Upper Primary classes and the qualifications of teachers are the same as those laid down by the Kerala State. Thus, even for the post of Headmaster, the trained graduates should be eligible for promotion.
6. The claim as made on behalf of the petitioners has been controverted by Mr. S. Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the respondent-Administration. He has pointed out that the qualifications have been validly prescribed by statutory rules. These have a nexus with the object of excellence in education. The qualifications are not arbitrary or unfair. Thus, there is no ground to interfere.
7. Admittedly, the Lakshadweep administration is a centrally administered territory. The employees are getting the pay scales sanctioned by the Central Government for persons holding equivalent posts. The pay scales sanctioned to the post of Headmaster of a Senior Basic School is equal to that of the Higher Secondary School Teacher. Since the pay scale is identical, the Administration has prescribed equivalent qualifications as well. In doing so, it has not violated any rule or law.
8. Mr. Sugathan contends that the qualifications as prescribed are arbitrary.
9. The contention is misconceived. The Headmaster is the Head of the institution. He has to lead the entire institution. He should be better equipped than the other teachers. Resultantly, the rule making authority has provided that he should not only be given a higher scale of pay than the other teachers, but he should also possess a higher qualification. A Post-graduate degree besides the qualification of B.Ed, cannot be said to be arbitrary or unfair. It is also not unrelated to the requirements of the post of Headmaster. It has a nexus with the object of achieving excellence in education.
10. Mr. Sugathan submits that the Lakshadweep Administration is following the syllabus prescribed by the Kerala State for its schools. It may be so. The syllabi in the school will not be the sole factor for determining the qualification for the teachers. Since the Islands are a centrally administered territory, the employees are getting the scales of pay sanctioned by the Central Government. They are, thus, required to fulfil the qualification as laid down by the Government of India. ,
11. A fact which deserves mention is that prescription of educational qualification is basically a question of policy. It has to be decided by the experts in the field. It is the job of the educationists and administrators. These questions of policy cannot be decided by Courts. In fact, the writ court is normally reluctant to enter the academic thickets. These matters are best left to the care of the experts in the field. In any case, on the material on record, it cannot be said that the prescribed qualifications have no nexus with the object of achieving academic excellence. These are not per se arbitrary or unfair. A person who is supposed to be the Head of the Institution, should possess a Post-graduate Degree in addition to the basic qualifications. There is no arbitrariness about the rule so as to call for any interference.
12. Mr. Radhakrishnan has referred to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in B. Venkata Reddy and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (AIR 1983 SC 1109) and P.O. Joshi and Ors. v. Accountant General, Ahamedabad and Ors. ((2003) 2 SCC 632). Both the decisions clearly support the contention as raised by the learned counsel.
13. Mr. Sugathan submits that for promotion to the post of Headmaster of a High School, a trained Graduate is eligible. The action in prescribing a higher qualification for a lower post is, thus, unfair. Mr. Radhakrishnan submits that there is an omission. The Government has probably overlooked the provision in the rule which provides for direct recruitment as well as for promotion. For direct recruitment, Post-graduate degree is an essential qualification. While making the provision for promotion, a similar amendment has not been made.
14. Even if it is assumed that for promotion to the post of Headmaster of a High School, the Government has not amended the qualification, it cannot mean that the amendment made in respect of the post of Headmaster Senior Basic School, is rendered illegal. An omission to amend the provision in respect of the post of Headmaster of a High School cannot affect the amendment actually made in respect of the post for which the petitioners are the candidates. In any case, if the petitioners are eligible for the post of Headmaster of a High School, they would be considered in accordance with the existing rule. That does not mean that the amendment made in the year 1996 by the notification at Ext.P4 is vitiated.
15. No other point has been raised.
In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition. It is consequently dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.