Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravikant Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 20 November, 2013
1
Writ Petition No.19823/2013
20.11.2013
Shri Shailesh Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for respondents
on advance notice.
Heard.
Rejection of candidature for appointment of Area Education Officer on the ground that the petitioner does 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 Schools/Adhyapak of Local Bodies cadre who has five years minimum teaching experience." 2 Writ Petition No.19823/2013
The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher discharging as Upper Division Teacher was not considered for appointment to the post of Area Education Officer.
Petitioner blames 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 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 3 Writ Petition No.19823/2013 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 the petitioner as Assistant Teacher. 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 appointment as Area Education Officer, is contrary to the Rules, therefore, deserves to be quashed and the petitioner be declared eligible for appointment as Area Education Officer.
Considered the submissions.
The eligibility criteria for appointment to the post 4 Writ Petition No.19823/2013 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 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 5 Writ Petition No.19823/2013 of the decision in Nilangshu Bhusan Basu v. Deb K. Sinha and others (2001) 8 SCC 119 wherein it has been held:
"15. 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 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 6 Writ Petition No.19823/2013 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, 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 7 Writ Petition No.19823/2013 neither restrict the scope of the statutory provision, nor does it widens it.
Contention put forth that the petitioner in the school in which he was discharging as Assistant Teacher was subsequently up-graded and in absence of regular Upper Division Teacher, the petitioner was discharging as Upper Division Teacher and therefore, the experience gained by him ought to have been counted towards the experience as Upper Division Teacher deserves to be rejected at the outset, reason being that the experience of five years as is required for promotion to the post of Area Education Officer is to be gained after being regularly promoted as Upper Division Teacher.
In view whereof, there being no substance in the petition, it fails and is dismissed. No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE anand