Allowed

R.Seshadri, v. The District Educational Officer

Telangana HC19 Feb 2010WP/2142/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the court allowed a senior Sanskrit Pandit's claim for promotion to Headmaster, ruling that his traditional qualifications equivalent to M.A. and B.Ed. satisfied statutory requirements and awarding him the post with consequential benefits despite the service of a junior.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; proceedings dated 29.12.2004 set aside; petitioner declared entitled to promotion to Headmaster with effect from the date of impugned proceedings.

R.Seshadri, Vs The District Educational… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.2142 OF 2005

¶3

DATED FEBRUARY, 2010

¶4

BETWEEN R.Seshadri … Petitioner And The District Educational Officer, Guntur. And Others. … Respondents

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.2142 OF 2005

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

The District Educational Officer, Guntur, by proceedings dated 29.12.2004 accorded permission to Sri Rama Krishna Oriental High School, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, the third respondent, to promote Y.Thyagaraju, the sixth respondent, to the post of Headmaster and requested the Correspondent of the School to issue necessary promotion orders. The petitioner, being the senior most Teacher in the third respondent School, filed the present writ petition challenging the aforesaid proceedings dated 29.12.2004 and seeking a declaration that he is entitled to promotion to the said post.

¶9

The petitioner is a Sanskrit Pandit Grade-I working in the third respondent School. He possesses the qualifications of ‘Siromani’ and ‘Siksha Sastri’. These qualifications are said to be equivalent to M.A. and B.Ed. respectively. The post of Headmaster in the third respondent School fell vacant on 30.06.2004 upon the retirement of the previous incumbent. Thereupon, the third respondent School submitted proposals, along with the seniority list of eligible candidates, under letter dated 01.09.2004 and requested permission from the District Educational Officer, Guntur, for effecting promotion to the post of Headmaster. The District Educational Officer, Guntur, issued the impugned proceedings dated 29.12.2004 in response thereto permitting the promotion of the sixth respondent as the Headmaster. Hence, this writ petition.

¶10

In spite of service of notice, the sixth respondent did not choose

¶11

to put in an appearance before this Court, either in person or through counsel.

¶12

The petitioner placed reliance on various Government Orders to support his claim that he is qualified to hold the post of Headmaster and that he has a superior claim, being the senior most Teacher in the School. Reference is made to G.O.Ms.No.2296, Education Department, dated 08.11.1965 and G.O.Ms.No.1613, Education Department, dated 28.06.1966 to demonstrate that the qualifications of ‘Siromani’ and ‘Siksha Sastri’ are equivalent to M.A. and B.Ed. respectively. The proceedings dated 13.05.1989 issued by the Nagarjuna University and the proceedings dated 23.01.1964 issued by the Ministry of Education, Government of India, are also relied upon in this regard.

¶13

Sri D.Linga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, also pointed out that his client was exempted from passing the departmental tests as he had crossed the age of 45 years and was covered by the instructions of the Government in this regard. The learned counsel also placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.66, School Education (PS.1) Department, dated 15.06.2004 to support his plea that the petitioner, being the senior most qualified person, ought to have been considered for promotion to the post of Headmaster.

¶14

Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education, relying upon the counter filed by the District Educational Officer, Guntur, stated that mere equivalence of the qualifications was not sufficient for being appointed to the post of Headmaster. He pointed out that the petitioner had not passed the Headmasters’ Accountant Test and that the equivalence of his qualifications in Sanskrit to the conventional qualifications of M.A. and B.Ed. was only for the purpose of appointment for teaching purposes. He contended that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification to hold the post of Headmaster and therefore his seniority was of no avail. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the senior most Teacher in

¶15

the third respondent School and the sixth respondent is far junior to him, having entered into the service of the School more than a decade later. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was made the In-charge Headmaster of the third respondent School upon the post falling vacant. The dispute is with regard to his possessing the requisite qualification for regular promotion to the post of Headmaster.

¶16

The Central Sanskrit Board recommended to the Government of India that employment of traditional Sanskrit Pandits in Higher Secondary Schools should be encouraged and that the Teachers so employed should be treated on par with other Teachers possessing equivalent qualifications in the general educational set-up. Taking note of this recommendation, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.2296 dated 08.11.1965, bestowing recognition upon traditional Sanskrit qualifications on par with examinations in the general educational set-up. Thereby, ‘Siromani’ qualification was given equivalence with M.A. Degree. Similarly, under G.O.Ms.No.1613 dated 28.06.1966 the Government of Andhra Pradesh accorded recognition to ‘Siksha Sastri’ qualification and made it equivalent to B.Ed. Degree for the purposes of appointment to the posts in Secondary Schools, involving teaching of Sanskrit language. Nagarjuna University also recognized such equivalence between ‘Siksha Sastri’ and ‘B.Ed.’ qualification under its proceedings dated 13.05.1989.

¶17

The proceedings dated 23.01.1964 issued by the Ministry of Education, Government of India, are very relevant for the purposes of this case. By the said proceedings, the Government of India informed all the State Governments that it had accepted the recommendations of the Central Sanskrit Board that traditional Sanskrit Scholars should be employed in Higher Secondary Schools and that, Teachers so employed should be treated on par with other Teachers possessing equivalent qualifications of the general educational set-up. Stating so, the Government of India requested all the State Governments to give

¶18

due consideration to the matter and report upon the action taken. The Government of India also communicated a statement showing the equivalence of qualifications in Sanskrit with conventional qualifications. Therein, ‘Siromani’ and ‘Siksha Sastri’ are shown to be equivalent to M.A. and B.Ed. or B.T. respectively.

¶19

In the light of the aforestated proceedings of the Government of India, which also find reflection in G.O.Ms.No.2296 dated 08.11.1965 issued by the State Government, it is not open to the authorities of the Education Department to assert that though Sanskrit qualifications are equivalent to conventional qualifications, they are only so for teaching purpose and that such candidates cannot be considered for promotion to the post of Headmaster. The instructions of the Government of India clearly indicate that Sanskrit Pandits, who are appointed on the basis of such equivalent qualifications, were to be treated on par with Teachers possessing conventional qualifications for all purposes. It is therefore not open to the authorities of the Education Department to discriminate between the two by drawing an imaginary distinction. One, which is not envisaged either in the instructions issued by the Government of India or in the instructions issued by the State Government. Once the petitioner possessed qualifications equivalent to M.A. and B.Ed., he cannot be denied promotion to the post of Headmaster on the ground that he does not possess the conventional Degrees of M.A and B.Ed.

¶20

In so far as passing of the Headmasters’ Accountant Test is concerned, the petitioner placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.165, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 22.04.1997, granting exemption from passing of such Tests upon employees who crossed 45 years of age. It is not in dispute that G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 22.04.1997 was extended to cover employees working in Aided Private Educational Institutions by G.O.Ms.No.601, Education (PS-1) Department, dated 18.12.1988. The statement forwarded by the third respondent School, under its letter dated 01.09.2004, indicated that the

¶21

petitioner was exempted from passing the said Test as he had crossed the age of 45 years on 03.01.1994. There are no reasons forthcoming from the counter as to why the exemption extended to employees over 45 years of age cannot be claimed by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner must be held to be qualified in all respects to hold the post of Headmaster.

¶22

Further, the amendment of the relevant rules by G.O.Ms.No.66 dated 15.06.2004, provided for promotion of the ‘senior most qualified person’ to the post of Headmaster. Once the petitioner is held to be qualified in all respects, his ‘senior most’ status not being in dispute, he ought not to have been overlooked. The action of the authorities of the Education Department of the State in asking the third respondent School to promote Y.Thyagaraju, the sixth respondent herein, as the Headmaster under its proceedings dated 29.12.2004 is therefore illegal and unsustainable.

¶23

The writ petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the proceedings dated 29.12.2004 and declaring that the petitioner is entitled to promotion to the post of Headmaster in the third respondent School pursuant to its proposals dated 01.09.2004. Such promotion shall be given effect from the date of the impugned proceedings, whereby the sixth respondent was erroneously promoted, with all consequential benefits. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

_________ FEBRUARY, 2010. VGSR

¶25

____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J.

R.Seshadri, v. The District Educational Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Seshadri, v. The District Educational Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Apsrtc rep by its Regional Manager, Vs M.S. Prakash

A. Sudarshan, Vs The Farmers Service Cooperative Society Ltd.

T.S.Dayanand, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Mrs. K. Mythili, Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

Smt. M. Sreedevi, Vs The State of a.P., rep. by its Prl., Secretary

V.Sesha Brahma Chari, Vs The District Co-Op. Officer