Holding

The experience of a Language Pandit accrued before obtaining a teaching degree must be counted towards the ten‑year experience requirement, rendering the appellant fully qualified for the Head Master post.

Summary

Lakshmipathi Naidu, a Telugu Pandit since 1975, obtained a B.Ed. in 1983 and applied for a Head Master vacancy in 1986. The Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational Service required ten years of experience as a B.T. Assistant or Pandit after obtaining a teaching degree, leading the Madras High Court to reject his claim, counting only three years of post‑degree experience. On appeal, Naidu argued that earlier High Court judgments (P. Subbannan and P.S. Chandrasekhar) equated the experience of a Language Pandit with that of a trained graduate, allowing pre‑degree service to be counted. The Supreme Court held that those precedents had become settled law and the High Court should not have departed from them, thereby treating Naidu as fully qualified. The Court also rejected the requirement of an Accounts Test for the post, citing G.O. No. 720. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court judgments were set aside, and Naidu’s case was to be considered for appointment.

Issues considered

Whether experience as a Language Pandit acquired before obtaining a teaching degree can be counted towards the ten‑year experience requirement for Head Master under the Special Rules.
Whether the Accounts Test qualification is mandatory for appointment as Head Master in aided higher secondary schools.
Whether the High Court erred in departing from earlier High Court decisions interpreting the experience requirement.

Subjects

Head Master appointmentTamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational ServiceLanguage Pandit experienceQualification criteriaPrecedentSupreme CourtAccounts TestG.O. No.720

Judgment

A B. LAKSHMIPATHI NAIDU
~
v.
DISTI. EDUCATIONAL OFFICER AND ORS.

AUGUST 11, 1992

B [LAUT MOHAN SHARMA, S. MOHA1'1 AND
N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.)

Special Rules /or Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational Service: r
Service Law-Experience-Teache~Appoifltment as Telugu Pan-
c dit-C/aim for the post of Head Mastel'-{!ualifications-Experience of ten
years as B. T. Assistant or Language Pandit after obtaining teaching degree
required-Decisions of High Court equating experience of Language Pandit
with that of a trained Graduat~eld period of appointment as Telugu
Pandit shall be counted for reckoning total experience. ~
D
Precedent-Need to follow.

Under Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educa-
tional Service, the minimum qualifications fixed for the post of Head
Master is ten years experience as B.T. Assistant or Language Pandit after
E obtaining a teaching degree. The appellant- teacher working as a Telugu
-.(
Pandit since 1975 obtained his degree of Master of Arts in Telugu in 1978
and Bachelor of Eduction in 1983. His claim to the post of Head Master
which fell vacant in 1986 was rejected departmentally as well as by a Single
Judge and on appeal by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court on
_...
the ground that he was not qualified for such appointment because having
F
obtained his B.Ed. degree in 1983 his experience was only about three
years when the post of Head Master fell v~cant. _,1

In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant
that in view of the earlier decisions of the High Court, the experience of a
G Language Pandit has to be equated with that of a trained Graduate.

Allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgments of the High
Court, this Court, ';-r---

HELD: The earlier judgments of the High Court interpreting the
H rule in favour of Language Pandits prevailed in the State for a consider-
'71l')
\

~

LAKSHMIPATHI v. EDUCATIONAL OFFICER (SHARMA, J.] 783

+ ably long period. The said principle has become settled and must have A
been applied in the other schools of the State. Therefore, the High Court,
should not have departed from the settled position and should have
followed the earlier decisions. Accordingly, the appellant must be treated
to be fully qualified for the post of the Head Master and his case should
be ~onsidered for appointment. [784F-G, 785-D]
B
P. Subba11nan v. The Director of School Education and Anr., : Writ
Petition No. 4470 of 1982 decided on 21.2.1983; P.S. Chandrasekhar v. 17ie
Director of School Education, Madras and Ors., Writ Petition No. 7367 of
1983 decided on 18.10.1985, approved.
c
- 1992.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2944 of

From the Judgment and Order dated 11.6.91 of the Madras High
)- Court in W.A. 737/91.
D
V. Krishnamurthy and V. Balachandra for the Appellant.

S. Ba:lakrishnan, R.N. Keshwani and R. Mohan for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
SHARMA, J. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Special leave
is granted.

- 2. The appellant is a school teacher claiming appointment as Head
Master. He has been working as a Telugu Pandit since 1975 in the School
concerned. He got the degrees of Master of Arts in Telugu in 1978 and F
Bachelor of Education in 1983. The post of Head Master fell vacant. on
r. 1.11.1986. According to the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge
of the Madras High Court, he has been held to be ineligible for the post.
The decision was confirmed on appeaJ by a short order by a Division Bench
which is under challenge in the present appeal.
G
3. The main ground for holding that the appellant was not quaJified
for the post of Head Master in 1986 is based upon the minimum qualifica-
~
tion fixed in this regard ·by the Special Rules For The Tamil Nadu Higher
Secondary Educational Service in its annexure by requiring the candidate
to have:- H
~

784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 3 S.C.R.

A "(iii) Experience for a period of not less than ten years as B.T.
Assistant or Pandit in a Secondary School!fraining SchooV -~
Higher Secondary Schoo~ after obtaining a teaching degree,
recognised by the Director of School Education;"

According to the respondents, the above condition requires to have
B
ten years experience as a Pandit, after obtaining a teaching degree, reeog-
nised by the Director of School Education. It is said that since the appellant
acquired the degree only in 1983, his experience in 1986 was of about three
years. The plea of the appellant that this period has to be calculated from
1975 when he was appointed as Telugu Pandit has been rejected
c departmentally as well as by the High Court.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that in view
of several other provisions in the Rules as also Instructions issued by the
-
State, the experience of a Language Pandit has to be equated with that of _,
D a trained graduate and on this basis, at least two judgments were delivered
by the Madras High Court in P. Subbannan v. The Director of School
education and another: Writ Petition No. 4470 of 1982 dated 21.2.1983, and
in P.S. Chandrasekhar v. The Director of School Education, Madras-6 and
others: Writ Petition No.7367 of 1983 dated 18.10.1985. We have examined
the judgment in P.Subbannan 's case the High Court had to deal with the
E
claim of Tamil Pandit and in Chandrasekhar's case that of a Hindi Pandit,
but since the same considerations arise in regard to any language Pandit
the decisions are certainly in favour of the appellant. A writ appeal was
filed against the judgment in P. Subbannan's case, which along with another
writ appeal was withdrawn by the State as is evident by the order of the
F Division Bench in writ appeals Nos. 950 and 951 of 1983 vide Annuxure -
J. The learned counsel is, therefore, right in contending that the two
-~
judgments interpreting the rule in favour of Language Pandits prevailed in
the State for a considerably long period. It should further be presumed that
the said principle has become settled and must have been applied in the
G other schools of the State. In view of this consideration, we hold that the
High Court, in the present case, should not have departed from the settled
position and. should have followed the two decisions mentioned·above.

5. The learned single Judge has also mentioned another ground for
H rejecting the appeUant's case. It has been held that for the promotion to
LAKSHMIPATHI v. EDUCATIONAL OFF1CER (SHARMA, J.) 785

the post of Head Master it was necessary that the claimant had passed A
Accounts Test, and since the appellant was lacking in this qualification he
was not elegible. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our
attention to the G.0.Ms. No. 720 dated 28.4.1981 showing that this
qualification was not to be insisted upon until further orders for appoint-
ment of Head Master of aided higher secondary schools. It is averred on B
behalf of the appellant and not denied on behalf of any of the respondents
that the school in question is an aided higher secondary school and that
no further orders to the contrary have been passed so far. The second
ground put against the appellant in the impugned judgment also must be
rejected.
c
- 6. For the reasons indicated above, we set aside the judgments of the
High Court, rendered by the learned single Judge and the Division Bench.
We further hold that the appellant must be treated to be fully qualified for
the post of the Head Master. Hence his case will be taken into considera-
)_ tion before taking a final decision in the question of the appointment of
the Head Master in the concerned school. The appeal is accordingly D
allowed, but in the circumstances, without costs.

T.N.A. Appeal allowed.

---