Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tulsiram Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 7 October, 2013
1
Writ Petition No.16873/2013
07.10.2013
Shri Ravindra Bisen, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Deputy Advocate
General for respondents on advance notice.
Heard.
Rejection of candidature for appointment of Area Education Officer on the ground that the petitioners do not possess requisite year of teaching experience is cause for present writ petition.
That the cadre of Area Education Officer came to be created by causing amendment in the Madhya Pradesh Education Service (School Branch) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1982. The posts are to be filled up through a limited Departmental Examination from amongst Teachers (Upper Division Teachers) Head Masters of Middle School/Adhyapak of Local Bodies.
The minimum educational qualifications and other requisitions as per amendments in Rule 1982 published in Madhya Pradesh Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 22.08.2013 are "Graduate Degree from recognized University and B.Ed. which should be recognized by the National Council for Teachers Education and Teachers (Upper Division Teachers) Head Masters of Middle 2 Writ Petition No.16873/2013 Schools/Adhyapak of Local Bodies cadre who has five years minimum teaching experience."
The petitioners initially appointed as Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade II in the year 2006 and were later on designated as Adhyapak in pursuance to provisions contained in Madhya Pradesh Adhyapak Samvarg (Employment & Conditions of service) Rules 2008. They since does not have minimum teaching experience of five years as Adhyapak are not considered for appointment as Area Education Officer.
Petitioners blame the issuance of letter dated 16.09.2013 being the cause for rejection. The letter is in the following terms:
e/; izns'k 'kklu Ldwy f'k{kk foHkkx ea=ky;] oYyHk Hkou dzekad ,Q13&24@2013@20&1@1012 Hkksiky] fnukad 16@09@2013 izfr] 1- leLr laHkkxh; la;qDr lapkyd] yksd f'k{k.k e/;izns'k 2- leLr ftyk f'k{kk vf/kdkjh] e/;izns'k 3- leLr lgk;d vk;qDr] vkfnoklh fodkl foHkkx] e/;izns'k fo"k;%&,-bZ-vks- ds in ds fy, lwphc) vkosndksa ds vfHkys[kksa dk ijh{k.k djus ds laca/k esaA 3 Writ Petition No.16873/2013 lUnHkZ%&bl foHkkx dk lela[;d i= fnukad 12-09-2013- d`i;k lUnfHkZr i= dk voyksdu djsaA ,-bZ-vks- in ds fy, lwphc) vkosndksa ds dk;Z vuqHko ds laca/k esa vfHkys[kksa ds ijh{k.k djus ds laca/k esa fuEukuqlkj dk;Zokgh dh tk, %& 1- v/;kid laoxZ esa dk;Z vuqHko ds o"kksZa dh x.kuk vH;FkhZ ds v/;kid laoxZ esa okLrfod fu;kstu dh frfFk ls dh tk,A pwWafd v/;kid laoxZ dk xBu fnukad 01-04-2007 ls gqvk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa bl frfFk ds iwoZ ds dk;Z vuqHko dh x.kuk u dh tk,A 2@ ,sls v/;kid tks tuf'k{kd@chvkjlh@ch,lh ds inksa ij dk;Z dj jgs gSa] mudh lsok vof/k dk;Z vuqHko dh x.kuk ds fy, ekU; dh tk,xhA 3@ f'k{kd@iz/kku v/;kid ds in ij dk;Z vuqHko f'k{kd ds in ij okLrfod :i ls fu;qDr gksus ds fnukad ls ekU; fd;k tk,A ¼vkj-ds- pkSdls½ mi lfpo e-iz- 'kklu] Ldwy f'k{kk foHkkx It is urged that it is because of the issuance of above letter which has led the respondents not to take into consideration the experience gained by each of them as Assistant Teachers. It is contended that the stipulation in the letter dated 16.09.2013 laying down that Upper Division Teacher and Head Master must possess experience of five years to be eligible for 4 Writ Petition No.16873/2013 appointment as Area Education Officer, is contrary to the Rules, therefore, deserves to be quashed and the petitioners be declared eligible for appointment as Area Education Officer.
Considered the submissions.
The eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Area Education Officer as brought in vogue by way of amendment at the cost of repetition is :
"4 Area - - Graduate Degree Selection by Education from recognized limited Officer University and B.Ed. Examination (AEO) which should be from the post of recognised by Head Masters, National Council Middle School, for Teachers and Teachers Education and (Upper Division Teachers (Upper Teachers) and Division Teachers) Adhyapak of Head Masters of Local Bodies Middle Cadre."
School/Adhyapak of local bodies cadre who has 5 years minimum teaching experience.
Thus the feeder cadre, educational qualification and the teaching experience has been clubbed. Thus unless the incumbent fulfills all the three elements, he is not entitled to be appointed as Area Education Officer. The suggestion that the experience gained by the petitioner prior to their promotion to the post of 5 Writ Petition No.16873/2013 Upper Division Teacher should be taken into consideration cannot be accepted because minimum qualification being Upper Division Teacher/Head Master/ Adhyapak in Local Bodies, the experience gained after the appointment on the feeder cadre can only be taken into consideration. In this context, reference can be had of the decision in Nilangshu Bhusan Basu v. Deb K. Sinha and others (2001) 8 SCC 119 wherein it has been held:
"Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to substantiate the submission that experience on a "responsible post" would mean experience on the just below post. He referred to a Circular dated 1-4-1992 issued by the Municipal Corporation (Personnel Department) . It relates to recruitment to 'A' Category post like that of Medical Officer, Assistant Engineer and Deputy Assessor Collector, Deputy Treasurer etc. It has been provided that experience on supervisory post would mean the post immediately below the post to which promotion is to be made, for example experience on the post of Assistant Assessor/ Assistant Collector/ Assistant Treasurer etc. would be experience on a supervisory post for promotion to the post of 6 Writ Petition No.16873/2013 Deputy Assessor, Deputy Collector, Deputy Treasurer etc. We hardly find that this Circular would be applicable in the case in hand. It is specific about `A' category posts and not for all categories and ranks. Another Circular dated 21.6.1988 has been referred to which relates to recruitment on the post of Deputy Chief Engineer (Civil) , Deputy Chief Engineer (Mechanical) etc. By means of the said circular experience on the post of Executive Engineer or on any similar post was required. It firstly relates to the recruitment to the post of Deputy Chief Engineer. It cannot be applied for recruitment to the post of Chief Municipal Engineer (Civil). Such a condition is not contained in terms of required qualification for the post of Chief Municipal Engineer (Civil). Wherever experience on a post just below is needed, such a provision is specifically contained. On this basis it cannot be generally held that for every post in any rank or category the ''responsible post'' must necessarily mean the post next below the post for which recruitment is to be made."
That the letter dated 16.09.2013 when adjudged on above analysis does not support the contention of the petitioners that it supplants the statutory Rules, 7 Writ Petition No.16873/2013 rather it only clarifies. And supplementing of a Rule by executive fiat is permissible under law [for an authority see : Union of India & others v. Raj Kumar Gupta and others (1995) Supp (2) SCC 607 and Union of India & others v. Rakesh Kumar (2001) 4 SCC 309]. Careful reading of the letter in question would reveal that it neither restrict the scope of the statutory provision, nor does it widens it.
In view whereof, there being no substance in the petition, it fails and is dismissed. No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE anand