THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION AND DISTRICT RECRUITMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.versusSHAIK MOULA AND ANR.

A               TI-IE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTiON
                AND DISTRICT RECl~UITMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.
                                      v.
                           SHAii<. MOULA AND ANR.

                                  NOVEMBER 22, 2006
B
              [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH i>ANTA, JJ.]


           Service Law:
c          Appointment of primary school teacher-Dispute if Respondent No. I
     possessed requisite qualification-Courts below with reference to a
     Government Order held that it indicated that Respondent No. I possessed
     equivalent qualification-Propriety of-Held, improper since there is no
     such indication in the Government Order-Courts below erred in making
D    inferential conclusion, that too without appreciating the nature of the
     controversy.

           Respondent No. 1 filed application for appointment as a primary school
     teacher in the Hindi subject. The application was rejected on the ground that .
     Respondent No. I did not possess the requisite qualification. According to '
E    the Appellants, Respondent No. 1 did not have the requisite qualification of
     TCH or any qualification equivalent to it and had only passed an examination
     equivalent to Teacher Training Certificate (TTC). However, the Tribunal as
     well as the High Court held that bare reading of the Government's order dated
     24/26th August, 1974 in~icated that Respondent No. 1 possessed the requisite
F    qualification inasmuch t.he qualification possessed by him was equivalent to
     TCH. Hence the present appeal.

           Allowing the appeal, the Court

           HELD: The Tribunal was really confused as to what was the subject
G    matter of dispute which is clear from its observations. 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. Whether a
     particular qualification is equivalent to another has to be specifically indicated.
     That has not been done. Inferential conclusion, that too without appreciating
I!                                          318
  DEPUTI' DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION AND DISTRICT RECRUITMENT AUTHORITY"· SHAIK MOULA IPASAYAT. J.1.   319

the nature of the controversy, makes decisions of the Tribuna.l a~ the High                                      A
Court vulnerable. They are accordingly set aside. (320-E~F; 32t-A~BI

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : ~ivil Appeal No. 5152 of2006: .

    From the Judgment amd Order dated 16-3-2004 of the High Court of
Kamataka at Bangalore in W.P. No. 2768/2003 (S-KA T).                                                            B
        Snjay R. Hedge for the Appellants.

     S. Nanda Kumar, A. Santha Kumar, Mayil Samy, Ms. ftenuka 'Devi and
V.N. Raghupathy for the Respondents.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                                                                 c
        ARIJITPASAYAT, J. Leave granted.

      Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench
of the Kamataka High Court dismissing writ petition filed by the appellants.                                     D
Challenge before the High Court was to the order passed by the Kamataka
Administrative Tribunal (in short the 'Tribunal').

        Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:-

       Respondent no. I filed an application before the Tribunal under Section                                   E
 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 118 (reserved category) and to issue order
of appointment as primary school teacher in the Hindi subject. The applicant-
respondent no. 1 herein had filed an application for appointment as primary
school Assistant Teacher (Hindi) in Bangalore Rural District. The same was                                       F
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. Cl .Pra.Sha.Shi.Ne/01/2001-02 dated 8.9.2001 are as follows:

         "I.Must have passed PUC and TCH or equivalent examinations
                                                                                                                 G
          * 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".

      According to the appellants, the respondent no. I did not have the
qualification of TCH. He had passed the examination which is equivalent to                                       H
    320                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A Teacher Training Certificate (TTC). The Tribunal held that the respondent no.
    I 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).

          Challenging order of the Tribunal, a writ petition was filed before the
B High Court reiterating the stand that the qualification possessed by the
    respondent no. I 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. I was equivalent to TCH.
c         Leaned 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.
D
           Learned 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
E   purpose of appointment to the primary school.

          It is 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:

F          "Undisputedly, 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 !\larks
           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
G          Hindi Shikshana Manda! 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?"
H                                                              (emphasis supplied)
         DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION AND DISTRICT RECRUITMENT AUTHORITY 1. SHAIK ~iOULA (PASAYAT. J.I   321

               The High Court proceeded on the basis as if the Government's order                                       A
        dated 24/26th August, 1974 made the position clear that the qualification
        possessed by respondent no. I was equivalent to TCH. There is really no
        such indication. Whether a particular qualification is equivalent to another
        has to be specifically indicated. That has not been done. Inferential conclusion,
        that too without appreciating the nature of the controversy, makes decisions                                    B
        of the Tribunal and the High Court vulnerable. They are accordingly set aside.

               The appeal is allowed but without any order as to costs.

        B.B.B .                                                                              Appeal allowed.




... .