Director of Public Instruction And Distt. Recruitment Authority & Ors Vs. Shaik
Moula & Anr  Insc 832 (22 November 2006)
Pasayat & Lokeshwar Singh Panta
out of SLP (C) No. 23576 of 2004) ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka
High Court dismissing writ petition filed by the appellants. Challenge before
the High Court was to the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal
(in short the 'Tribunal').
facts in a nutshell are as follows:-
no.1 filed an application before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985 (in short the 'Act') praying to quash the
selection made by the appellants and for a direction to include his name for
selection under category IIB (reserved category) and to issue order of
appointment as primary school teacher in the Hindi subject.
applicant-respondent no.1 herein had filed an application for appointment as
primary school Assistant Teacher (Hindi) in Bangalore Rural District. The same
was rejected on the ground that he did not possess the requisite qualification.
It was pointed out that the requisite qualifications as indicated in the
Notification No.C1.Pra.Sha.Shi.Ne/01/2001-02 dated 8.9.2001 are as follows:
Must have passed PUC and TCH or equivalent examinations * But the candidates
who had taken admission to TCH course prior to 1989 will be eligible if they
have passed SSLC and TCH or equivalent examination".
to the appellants, the respondent no.1 did not have the qualification of TCH.
He had passed the examination which is equivalent to Teacher Training
Certificate (TTC). The Tribunal held that the respondent no.1 possessed the
requisite qualification. For that purpose reliance was placed on proceedings of
the Government of Karnataka (Order No.EF.43 PHN 72 Bangalore, Dated: the
24/26th August, 1974).
order of the Tribunal, a writ petition was filed before the High Court reiterating
the stand that the qualification possessed by the respondent no.1 was not
equivalent to TCH but was equivalent to TTC. The plea was rejected holding that
bare reading of the Government's order dated 24/26th August, 1974 indicated
that the qualification possessed by the respondent no.1 was equivalent to TCH.
counsel for the appellants submitted that both the Tribunal and the High Court
fell into grave error in coming to the conclusion that the qualification
possessed was equivalent to TCH with reference to the Government's order dated
24/26th August, 1974. In that order there is no indication even in the manner
as decided by the Tribunal or the High Court.
counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that bare reading of
the aforesaid order makes the position clear that the courses indicated in the
Government order had to be treated as equivalent courses for the purpose of
teaching Hindi in high school or secondary school and training institutions. That
being so, the qualification was applicable for the purpose of appointment to
the primary school.
to be noted that the Tribunal was really confused as to what was the subject
matter of dispute. It is clear from the following observation of the Tribunal:
the documents produced by the applicant demonstrate that he has passed SSLC in
the year 1990 (Annexure A2, is the Marks Card), PUC in the year 1993 (Annexure
'A4' is the Marks Card) and Hindi Uttama of Mysore Hindi Prachar Parishad
(Annexure 'A4' is the Certificate). The applicant has not passed TCH. But his
case is that a pass in Hindi Shikshana Praveen Pariksha of Kendriya Hindi Shikshana
Mandal Agra is recognized by the Government of Karnataka as equivalent to TCH
and as such the applicant satisfies the requirements of education
qualification. In the circumstances the only question is whether Hindi Shikshana
Praveen Pariksha passed by the applicant is equivalent to Teachers Training
Certificate?" (underlined for emphasis) The High Court proceeded on the basis
as if the Government's order dated 24/26th August, 1974 made the position clear that the
qualification possessed by respondent no.1 was equivalent to TCH. There is
really no such indication.
a particular qualification is equivalent to another has to be specifically
indicated. That has not been done.
conclusion, that too without appreciating the nature of the controversy, makes
decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court vulnerable. They are accordingly
appeal is allowed but without any order as to costs.