Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2014 (8) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 1210 - SC - Indian LawsSeniority of the Appellant vis-à-vis Respondent No. 4 - Treatment in the category of 'Trained Graduate Teachers' on being B. Ed. degree (to respondent no. 4) - Appellant had joined the said school as Assistant Teacher before Respondent No. 4 and was senior to him in the post of Assistant Teacher - whether it is the Appellant who is senior to Respondent No. 4 or it is Respondent No. 4 who is senior to the Appellant? HELD THAT:- The position which emerges is that for appointment of a Primary Teacher, the qualification that is stipulated in Schedule-B is that he or she should have passed S.S.C. examination or matriculation examination or lokshala examination or any other examination recognised as such by Government and the Primary Teachers Certificate examination or Diploma in Education examination, or a Diploma in Education (per-primary of two years' duration). Thus, among various alternate qualifications which are prescribed for appointment to the post of Primary School Teachers, one of the prescribed qualification is Diploma in Education Examination (D. Ed.). Therefore, a person holding this qualification would be treated as satisfying the qualification stipulated in Rule 6. As a consequence, he would be treated as 'Trained Graduate', as defined in Rule 2(1)(j), which means a person possessing the qualifications mentioned in Sub-clauses (i) to (vi) of Clause (1) of item II in Schedule "B". The Appellant was having the requisite minimum qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in the Primary School and it was not a case of appointment of an unqualified teacher when the Appellant was appointed to the said post on 24.08.1979 - In the present case, when it is found that the Appellant was qualified to be appointed as Assistant Teacher in Primary School on the date of his appointment, acquisition of higher qualification at a later date, even when such a higher qualification is requisite qualification for the higher post, will not be determinative for fixing the seniority. In the case at hand there is a specific Rule, namely, Rule 12 of the Rules, which deals with seniority. The clear and unambiguous criteria for determining seniority is the continuous officiation counted from the date of acquiring the educational qualification as prescribed under Schedule "B". It is stated at the cost of repetition that since the Appellant was holding the requisite qualifications, i.e. D. Ed., for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School, as prescribed under Schedule "B" to the Rules, her seniority was to be counted on the basis of continuous officiation. Since she joined the post of Assistant Teacher on 24.08.1979 and Respondent No. 4 came to be appointed subsequently, i.e. on 01.09.1980. The Appellant would naturally be senior to Respondent No. 4. A direction is issued to appoint the Appellant as Head of the School by replacing Respondent No. 4 therefrom - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|