Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. The State Government issued an advertisement on 22.8.2013 by which the process for recruitment to the post of Area Education officer was initiated and M.P. On-line Limited was authorized to conduct the recruitment process. Thereafter, the School Education Department issued an order dated 16.9.2013 by which it was provided that since 'Adhyapak Samwarg' has been constituted with effect from 01.4.2007, therefore, the teaching experience in the aforesaid cadre has to be reckoned from the date of actual appointment and not prior to 01.4.2007. However, the aforesaid order provides that the period of service of 'Adhyapaks' who are working as 'Jan Shikshak', Block Resource Coordinator and BAC shall be counted for teaching experience. Thereafter, clarificatory memo dated 24.8.2013 was issued by the Commissioner, Public Instructions, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal by which qualifications prescribed in the advertisement were clarified and it was provided that teaching experience of 5 years on a particular post, namely, posts of Head Master, Upper Division Teacher and 'Adhyapak' shall be taken into account to ascertain the eligibility of the candidates for participating in the process of recruitment for the post of Area Education Officer. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners have approached this Court.

22. It is also argued that Head Masters, 'Adhyapaks' or Upper Division Teachers are imparting education in Middle School, therefore, the experience of teaching in primary schools cannot be taken into account. In support of aforesaid submission, learned Government Advocate has placed referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in V.B.Prasad vs. Manager, P.M.D. Upper Primary School and others, (2007) 10 SCC 269. It is also submitted that taking into account the duties which are to be performed by Area Education Officer, the experience as mentioned in the Rules has to be construed to mean the teaching experience either on the post of Head Master Middle School, Upper Division Teacher as well as 'Adhyapak' and the same cannot be construed to mean the over all teaching experience. It was also pointed out that clarificatory memo was accordingly issued on 24.8.2013 by the Commissioner, Public Instructions, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.

40. The literal meaning given to the Rules would mean that only 'Adhyapak' of local body cadre is required to have 5 years experience whereas the requirement of teaching experience does not apply to the post of Upper Division Teacher and the Head Masters of Middle School. The literal construction in the instant case has to be avoided. If the interpretation to the teaching experience as prescribed in the Rules as mentioned in the advertisement and order dated 22.8.2013 and clarificatory memo dated 24.8.2013 is accepted, it would amount to promoting the anomaly as the person who is serving as Upper Division Teacher and may have 5 years teaching experience would be eligible to appear in the examination and whereas the person who is promoted from the cadre as Head Master and may not have 5 years' teaching experience on the promoted post, even though he is senior to the person holding the post of Upper Division Teacher. Exclusion of such candidate from the participation in the process of recruitment cannot neither be countenanced nor would satisfy the test of reasonableness. No tangible reason for excluding such candidate and the object sought to be achieved by amending the Rule is forthcoming. It is also pertinent to mention here that the post of 'Adhyapak' came into existence on account of merger of the post of 'Samvida Shala Shikshak' Grade-II with the post of 'Adhyapak' under the 2008 Rules. The nature of duties of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-II as well as Adhyapak are similar as both of them impart education in Middle Schools. However, if the teaching experience of such 'Adhyapak' on the post of 'Samvida Shala Shikshak' Grade-II is not taken into account, he would be excluded from the process of recruitment for the post of Area Education Officer. Similarly, Upper Division Teachers who may not have teaching experience of 5 years on the post of Upper Division Teacher and may have served years of teaching experience on the post of Assistant Teacher would be excluded. It is pertinent to mention here that in some of the writ petitions an averment has been made that though the petitioners are posted as Assistant Teachers, yet they are imparting education in Middle and High Schools. That averment of fact has not been controverted in the return filed by the State.

41. The advertisement dated 22.8.2014 as well as the order dated 16.9.2013 and clarificatory memo dated 24.8.2013 issued by the respondents, therefore, are not in consonance with the Rules, as the teaching experience prescribed in the rules is not relatable to any post. The post of Area Education Officer is an administrative post. The Area Education is, inter alia, required to monitor 40-50 primary and middle schools and academic monitoring of elementary education. The object of process of selection is to appoint most suitable candidates for the post of Area Education Officer and purposive interpretation is to be given to avoid the anomaly which had crept in by amendment in the rules in the year 2007 which the legislature intended to rectify by amendment in the Rules in the year 2013. More so when the amendment of the Rule was to depart from the ordinary rule of direct recruitment on such post. Therefore, the minimum qualification prescribed in the Rules, in our considered opinion, and in the background of aforesaid well settled legal principles with regard to statutory interpretation has to be read as over all teaching experience on any teaching post in the Government Schools.