DR. M.S. MUDHOL AND ANR.versusSHRI S.D. HALEGKAR AND ORS.

                    DR. M.S. MUDHOL AND ANR.                                      A
                                      v.
                  SHRI S.D. HALEGKAR AND ORS.

                               JULY 13, 1993

          [P.B. SAWANT AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.]                                  B

       Laches--Principal appointed in a private aided school not fulfilling
essential qualification,---Lapse of 9 years before moving cowt-Held, 13 years
have elapsed, and infraction of statutory rule not grave enough to wa1rant
inteiferenc,,-..Quo warranto.                                                     c
      Respondent 1 was appointed as Principal of the Delhi Kannada
Senior Secondary School in 1981. In 1990, petitioners who are members of
the teaching staff of the school moved the High Court for a writ of quo
warranto against respondent 1 which was dismissed inter alia on the ground
oflaches.                                                                  ])

      For respondent 1, it was contended that no writ of quo wa"anto could
be issued against the school which was managed by a private organisation,
n~r respondent 1 who was its employee; and that there had been a delay
of 9 years. Further, respondent 1 was duly qualified since he had an M.Ed         E
with a II division, even if he had a third class degree in M.A. - the essential
qualification being a II division in a post-graduate degree course.

      Dismissing the appeal, this Court

       HELD : 1. The post of the Principal in a private school though aided, F
is not of such sensitive public importance that the Court should find itself
impelled to interfere with the appointment by a writ of quo warranto even
assuming that such a writ is maintainable. This is particularly so when
the incumbent has been discharging his functions continuously for over a
long period of 9 years when the court was moved and today about 13 years G
have elapsed. The infraction of the statutory rule regarding the qualifica-
tions of the inc.nmbent pointed out in the present case is also not that grave
taking into consideration all other relevant facts. [119-H; 120-A-B]

      2. M.Ed II division is not equivalent to M.A. II division. The latter
is an academic qualification with wholetime course, spread over 2 years           H
                                      115
    116                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. l S.C.R.

A while the former is a professional qualification, part-time course spread
    over one year. (118-D]

         The statutory rule requires a II division in the academic Master's
    Degree, and the Teaching Degree is no substitute for it. (118-E]

B        The Director of Education had committed a clear error of law in
    approving the academic qualificatious when he was not so qualified.
                                                                     (120-C]
         3. As regards teaching experience, at least on date, when bis removal
    from the post of Principal was sought, he bad the requisite experience.
C                                                                       (119-D]
          4. There is nothing on record to show that be had projected bis
    qualifications to be other than what he possessed. Illegality, if any, was
    committed by the Selection Committee and the Director of Education. It
    would be inadvisable to disturb respondent 1 from his post at this late
D   stage particularly when he was not at fault when his selection was made.
                                                                    (119-E-G]
         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (CJ
    No.16256 of 1992.

E        From the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.1991 of the Delhi High
    Court in C.W. No. 2246 of 1990.

          G .L. Sanghi and Snrya Kant for the Appellant.

           Altaf Ahmed, Addi. Solicitor General, AK. Sen and R.N. Narasim-
F   hamurthy, S.S. Javeli, Ms. Indira Sahney and M.T. George for the Respon-
    dents.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

           The controversy in the present petition relates to the eligibility of the
G   Ist respondent to occupy the post of the Principal of the Delhi Kannada
    Senior Secondary School which is being run in New Delhi. The !st respon-
    dent was appointed as the Principal of the school in the year 1981. The
    statutory rules prevalent at the relevant time prescribed the essential
    qualification for the said post as follows:

H            (i) Master's Degree with at least Ilnd Division from a recognised
                    DR. MUDHOL v. S.D. HALEGKAR                           117

         university or equivalent.                                               A
         (ii) A Degree in Teaching from a recognised university or
         equivalent.

         (iii) Experience of 10 years' teaching as a Vice-Principal/P.G.T.
         (Post-graduate Teacher) in a Higher Secondary School or Inter-          B
         College.

The condition with regard to the Ilnd Division was relaxable in the case of
the candidates belonging to the same school and also in the case of the
Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe candidates. The desirable qualifica-
tions were:                                                                      c
         (i) Experience in administrative charge of a recognised Higher
         Secondary School/Inter-College.

         (ii) Doctorate Degree.
                                                                                 D
         (iii) M.Ed. Degree from a recognised university.

       Admittedly, the 1st respondent who did not belong to the same
school had M.A. Degree in Political Science with third class with 41.1%
aggregate marks, although he had his M.Ed. in second class. Respondent
No.1, according to the petitioners, however, did not also have the required
                                                                                 E
experience of 10 years' teaching, since he was working as an Inspector of
Schools prior to his selection as the Principal. The schools which he was
inspecting had also classes only upto the 8th standard. Thus, except the
degree of M.Ed. which he possessed, he did not have the other two
statutory essential qualifications at the time of his appointment as the         F
Principal. According to the petitioners, who are the members of the
teaching staff of the same school but not aspirants for the post of Principal,
the fact that the 1st respondent lacked the two essential qualifications came
to their light for the first time in 1990 and, therefore, they moved the High
Court by a writ of quo warranto against the 1st respondent. The High Court,      G
however, dismissed the petition on the ground of !aches and also on the
ground that the petitioners had not asserted in the writ petition that the
advertisement inviting the applications for the post of the Principal was
published before the 1st respondent was selected as the Principal.

      Learned counsel appearing for the !st respondent contended that no H
     118                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

·A writ of quo warranto could be issued against the school which wa; admit"·
     tedly managed by a private organisation or against the !st respondent who
     was an employee of such organisation. It was also contended that the !st
     respondent had been holding office of the Principal form 1981 and it was
     for the first time that his appointment was challenged in 1990, i.e., after a
B    lapse of about 9 years. The writ jurisdiction being discretionary, the High
     Court was right in refusing the relief. Lastly, it was contended that the !st
     respondent was duly qualified according to the statutory rules. While not
     disputing that the !st respondent had only a third class Degree in M.A., it
     was urged that since he had M.Ed. in !Ind Division, he should be deemed
     to have satisfied the requirement of !Ind Division in the Post-graduate
 C   Degree as M.Ed. was equivalent to M.A. As regards his teaching ex-
     perience, it was contended that every teacher in a High School was
     teaching upto 11th Stadard and since all High Schools had 11 standards,
     all Assistant Masters/teachers like him were teaching upto the 11th stand-
     ard. It was also contended that when he was acting as Education Officer
 D   and Inspector of Schools, he was also teaching.

          The contention of the respondents that M.Ed. !Ind Division was
   equivalent to M.A. !Ind Division is obviously fallacious. The latter is the
   academic qualification while the former a professional qualification.
   Secondly, the course of the former is whole-time spread over no less than ·
 E two years while the course of the latter ·is part-time and is spread over one ·
   year.· In any case, the statutory rule with regard to the essential qualifica-
   tions is very clear inasmuch as it requires both academic Master's Degree
   and the Teaching Degree, the latter being not the substitute for the former.
   What is further, whiie laying down the qualfications with regard to the
 F academic degree viz. the Master's Degree, the rule insists upon !Ind
   Division for_ such degree. It does not insist upon a !Ind Division Degree in
   teaching. A pass degree is sufficient in its eyes. It would, therefore, amount
   io distorting the requisite qualifications under the rules, to attempt to
   substitute the teaching qualification for the academic qualification and
   exchanging the divisions of the two. In fact, it appears that the Director of
 G Education had himself at one time not approved the qualifications of the
   1st respondent for the post of the Principal since he did not have the !Ind
   Division Degree in M.A. However, it is not known what transpired sub-
   sequently. After a lapse of few months, he acquiesced in the qualifications
    of the 1st respondent to hold the said post. It is for this reason that we had
 H issued notice to the Director of Education who is the 2nd respondent to ·
                   DR. MUDHOL v. S.D. HALEGKAR                           119

the petition. An affidavit has been filed on his behalf but except for the      A
rigmarole, we do not find anything in the affidavit to enlighten us either on
the interpretation of the said rule or on the reasons which led him to
change his earlier decision in the matter. We have, therefore, no doubt that
the 1st respondent did not have the requisite educational qualifications to
be selected for the post of the Principal.
                                                                                B
      As regards the teching experience, the !st respondent's contention is
that he had worked as a teacher for 9 years in a High School and Higher
Secondary School which had upto 11 standards. According to him, he also
worked as Leacturer in History. His further contention is that the post of
the School Inspector in Karnataka where he was workingas such and that          C
of the teacher were interchangeable. Hence the selection committee had
taken into consideration his experience in both the capacities. These facts
are not controverted before us and in any case today, he has the requisite
experience of teaching as he has been teaching the 11th and the 12th class
continuosly for 12 years now, since 1981. It can, therefore, be said that at    D
least as on date when his removal from the post of Principal is sought, he
cannot be said to be disqualified on account of the lack of required
teaching experience .

      . Since we find that it was the default on the part of the 2nd respon-
dent, Director of Education in illegally approving the appointment of the       E
first respondent in 1981 although he did not have the requisite academic
qualifications as a result of which the 1st respondent has continued to hold
the said post for the last 12 years now, it would be inadvisable to disturb
him from the said post at this late stage particularly when he was not at
fault when his selection was made. There is nothing on record to show that      F
he had at that time projected his qualifications other than what he pos-
sessed. It, therefore, inspite of placing all his cards before the seleetion
committee, the selection committee for some reason or the other had
thought it fit to choose him for the post and the 2nd respondent had chosen
to acquiesce in the appointment, it would be inequitious to make him suffer
for the same now. Illegality, if any, was committed by the selection com-       G
mittee and the 2nd respondent. They are alone to be blamed for the same.

      Whatever may be the reasons which were responsible for the non-
discovery of the want of qualifications of tli.e Isl respondent for a long time,
the fact remains that the Court was moved in the matter after a long lapse H
    120                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A of about 9 years. The post of the Principal in a private school though aided,
    is not of such sensitive public importance that the Court should find itself
    impelled to interfere with the appointment by a writ of quo warranto even
    assuming that such a writ is maintainable. This is particularly so when the
    incumbent has been discharging his functions continuously for over a long
B   period of 9 years when the court was moved and today about 13 years have
    elapsed. The infraction of the statutory rule regarding the qualification of
    the incumbent pointed out in the present case is also not that grave taking
    into consideration all other relevant facts. In the circumstances, we deem
    it unnecessary to go into the question as to whether a writ of quo warranto
    would lie in the present case or not, and further whether mere !aches would
C   disentitle the petitioners to such a writ.

          However, we must make it clear that in the present case the 2nd
    respondent, Director of Education had committed a clear error of law in
    approving the academic qualifications of the !st respondent when he was
    not so qualified. As pointed out about, the interpretation placed by him
D   and the other respondents on the requisite educational qualifications was
    not correct and the appointments made on the basis of such misinterpreta-
    tion are liable to be quashed as being illegal. Let this be noted for future
    guidance.

E         In the circumstances, we decline to interfere with the appointment
    of the !st respondent and dismiss the petition. There will be no order as
    to costs.

    U.R.                                                     Appeal dismissed.