Supreme Court of India
DR. PRIT SINGHversusS.K. MANGAL AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1992 INSC 228
- Decided
- 2 September 1992
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- M N VENKATACHALIAH
Holding
The appellant did not possess the requisite qualifications at the relevant date, and the subsequent amendment could not validate the appointment.
Summary
Dr. Prit Singh was appointed Principal of a recognised college on 22 July 1986, but the Vice‑Chancellor refused to approve the appointment because Singh did not meet the prescribed qualifications of a first or high second class Master's degree. The qualifications were later amended on 15 October 1987 to relax the requirement, and the Vice‑Chancellor subsequently approved Singh's appointment with effect from 16 October 1987. Singh contended that his M.Ed. degree satisfied the "Master's Degree" requirement, while the respondents argued that the original qualifications applied at the time of appointment. The Supreme Court held that "Master's Degree" meant an academic degree such as M.A., not a professional M.Ed., and that Singh had only secured 47.1% in his M.A., falling short of the required 55% threshold. Consequently, the amendment could not retroactively validate an appointment that was invalid at the time it was made, and the High Court's order quashing the appointment was affirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant possessed the requisite qualifications, specifically a first or high second class Master's degree, at the time of his appointment as Principal.
- Whether the amendment of the qualification criteria after the appointment can legitimize the appointment.
- Interpretation of the term "Master's Degree" in the qualification requirements – does it include a Master of Education degree?
Subjects
principal appointmentqualification requirementsmaster's degree interpretationuniversity regulationsamendment of criteriavice-chancellor approvaleligibility
Judgment
DR. PRIT SINGH A
v.
S.K. MANGAL AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 2, 1992
[M.N. VENKATACHALlAH, P.B. SAWANT AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] B
Civil Service-Appointment as a Principal of a recognised College by
Managing Committee on 22.7.86-Qualifications prescribed amended on
15.10.87-Approval by Vice Chancellor on 13.11.1987 w.e.f. 16.10.87.-
Legality of. C
Universities-Appointment as a Principal of recognised College by
Managing Committee on 22. 7.86-Qualijications prescribed amended on
15.10.87-Approva/ by Vice Chancellor on 13.11.1987 w.e;f. 16.10.87-
Legality of.
D
The post of Principal of a College was advertised on 30.6. 1986. After
interview of the applicants, the appellant was selected. On 22.7.1986 he
was appointed by the Managing Committee as the Principal. His appoint-
ment was not approved by the Vice-Chancellor, as the appellant did not
fulfill the requisite qualifications for the post.
E
The prescribed Qualifications were: (1) a consistently good
academic record, (Ii) with first or high second class (SS% marks/grade B
In the seven point scale) Master's Degree In any subject and (Iii) a Degree
in Education of an Indian University or equivalent degree of foreign
University.
F
However appointment was approved by the Vice Chancellor by his
order dated 13.11.87, with effect from 16.10.1987, when the qualifications
prescribed for principal were amended on lS.10.1987.
The respondent No.l liled a writ application questioning the validity G
or the appointment or the appellant on the ground that on the date of
appointment, the appellant did not possess the requisite qualifications.
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the appoint-
ment or the appellant, against which the present appeal by special leave
was filed. H
337
338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS[1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A The appellant contended that he possessed the requisite qualifica-
tions prescribed for the post of Principal; that 'Master's Degree' included
Masters Degree in Education (M.Ed.); that as the appellant secured 60%
marks at the examination of M.Ed., it would be deemed that he was
holding a Master's Degree haivng secured more than 55% of marks.
B The respondents submitted that if the appellant was not eligible for
appointment in terms of the prescribed qualifications on the date he was
appointed by the Managing Committee, subject to the approval of the
Vice-Chancellor, then later he could not become eligible after the
qualifications for the post were amended.
c Dismissing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: 1.01. The sole object of prescribing qualification that the
candidate must have a consistently good academic record with first or
high second class Master's Degree for ap11ointment to the post of a
D Principal, is to select a most suitable person in order to maintain excel-
lence and standard of teaching in the institution apart from administra·
lion. [343·B)
1.02. When the qualifications required 'a consistently good academic
E record with first or high second class (55% marks/grade B in the seven
point scale) Master's Degree in any subject'; it shall mean an academic
qualification like Master of Arts. The said requirement was prescribed
with 'a consistently good academic record'. (342-EJ
1.03. Master's Degree shall mean Degree of Master of Arts in any
F subject, is apparent also from the fact that apart from that degree the
candidate was required to possess also "Degree in Education' which will
mean B.Ed. or M.Ed. Normally if the expression 'Master's Degree' was to
include even the Master's Degree in Education (M.Ed.) there was no
necessity of prescribig the third requirement of a "Degree in Education".
[342 F·G]
G
1.04. A person having secured third division in M.A. who cannot be
considered by any University even for the post of Lecturer, will not become
qualified for being appointed as a Principal of any College, if later he
secures a high second class marks in M.Ed. Examination by completing
H a course of one year. (342-H, 343-A]
DR. PRIT SINGH v. S.K. MANGAL [N.P. SINGH, J.] 339
1.05. In the present case there Is no dispute that in the Master of Arts A
Examination, the appellant secured only 47 .1 % marks which is not even the
second division. The appellant had not secured even second class marks in
his Master of Arts Examination whereas the requirement was first or high
second class (55%). The irresistible conclusion· is that on tbe relevant date
tbe appellant did not possess tbe requisite qualifications. [343-C)
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3551 of
1992.
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.5.1992 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Letter Patent Appeal No. 605 of 1992.
c
P.C. Jain and Manoj Swarup for the Appellant.
Hardev Singh and l.B. Gaur for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
N.P. SINGH, J. Special leave granted.
The appeal has been filed for setting aside the judgment of the High
Court, quashing the appointment of the appellant as Principal of Chhotu
Ram College of Education, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as 'the said E
College').
An advertisement was issued on 30th June, 1986 inviting applications
for the post of Principal of the said College. After interview of the ap-
plicants the appellant was selected for the said post and he was appointed
as the Principal by the Managing Committee of the College in question on F
22nd July, 1986. As per the University regulations any such appointment
was required to be approved by the Vice-Chancellor. The vice-Chancellor
declined to approve the said appointment of the appellant on the ground
that he did not fulfil the requisite qualifications for the post, and the
decision of the Vice-Chancellor was duly communciated to the Managing G
Committee of the College by a letter dated 24th August, 1987. However,
later the Vice-Chancellor approved the appointment of the appellant by
his order dated 13th November, 1987 with effect from 16th October, 1987.
The validity of the appointment of the appellant was questioned in
the connected Writ Application on the ground that on the date of appoint- H
340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS[1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A ment the appellant did not possess the requisite qualifications. It was
pointed out that as the appellant did not possess the requisite qualifica-
tions, Vice-Chancellor did not approve his appointment but later he ap-
proved the appointment only with effect from 16th October, 1987 when the
qualifications prescribed for Principal were amended on 15th October,
B 1987. It was suggested that this change was introduced with ma/afitk
intention in order to facilitate the appointment of the appellant.
However before this Court, on behalf of the appellant, a stand was
taken that he possessed the requisite qualifications prescribed for the post
of Principal, on the date he was appointed by the Managing Committee,
C and the Vice-Chancellor should have approved his appointment with effect
from the date of his appointment as the Principal, by the Managing
Committee of the College.
In order to appreciate the controversy it will be proper to quote the
D requisite qualifications prescribed for the Principal of a recognised College
of Education, which existed and which were replaced on 15th October,
1987.
Before Amendment After Amendment
(a) A consistently good academic (a) A good academic record with
record with first or high second at least first or high second class
E
class (55% marks/grade B in the (B in seven point scale) at Mas-
seven point scale) Master's Deg- ter's Degree in Edncation and not
ree in any subject and also a degree necessarily also at Master's Deg-
in education of an Indian Univer- ree in the relevant subject (relaxa-
sity or equivalent degree of foreign ble if a candidate has to his credit
F University (relaxable if a candidate research work of very high stan-
has to his credit research work of dard or University approved tea-
very high standard) and cher before 27.1.1976).
(b) No change.
(b) An M. Phil degree or a
G recognised degree be)UDd the Mas
ter's level· or published work
indicating the capacity of a candi-
date for independent research work.
Provi- ded that if a candidate
H posses.sing the qualifications as at
DR. PRIT SINGH v. S.K. MANGAL [N.P. SINGH, J.] 341
(b) is not available or not consi- A
dered suitable, the college on the
recommendation of the Selection
Committee may appoint a person
possessing the qualification as at
(a). B
The academic records of writ petitioner-respondent No.1 and the
appellant are as follows:-
Respondent No.1 Appellant
c
Matric 62% 43.8% (219/500)
B.A 42% 48.6% 243/500)
B.Ed. 53% Second Division D
less than 55%
M.A. 58% 47.1% (377/800)
M.Ed. 67% 60% (360/600)
E
For the post of Principal in a recilgnised College of Education, three
qualifications were prescribed (i) A consistenly good academic record; (ii)
with first or high second class (55% marks/grade Bin the seven point scale)
Master's Degree in any subject and (iii) a Degree in Education of an Indian
University or equivalent degree of foreign University. F
The basic fault which has been found by the High Court in respect
of the appellant is that in the Master of Arts Examination the appellant
had secured only 47.1% marks, whereas according to the qualifications
prescribed the candidate was required to secure either first or high
second class (55%) marks at the Master's Degree Examination. G
According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
'Master's Degree" shall include even Master's Degree in Education
(M.Ed.) and as the appellant had secured 60% marks at the examination
for Master of Education (M.Ed), it will be deemed that he was holding H
342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS(1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A Master's Degree in Education, having secured more than 55% of marks.
In this connection, our attention was drawn to the Degree of Master of
Education awarded to the appellant from the Kurukshetra University
certifying that the appellant had obtained "Degree of Master of Educa-
tion11.
B
As a first impression thf's argument is attractive especially because
the qualifications aforesaid simply speak "Master's Degree"; they do not
say Master of Arts Degree. It is well known that after B.A. Examination
a person has to pursue studies for two years for obtaining Master's
C Degree in Arts (M.A.) whereas after passing B.A. Examination any
person interested in professional side of the education, may become B.Ed.
after completing the course for one year. Similarly for M.Ed. (Master of
Education Degree) the course is of one year only. In this background the
question which has to be answered is as to whether when the aforesaid
qualification required for the post of Principal is "Master's Degree',
! D whether it shall include Master of Education Degree also.
It need not be pointed out that the Degree of Master of Arts is an
academic qualification, whereas Degree of Master of Education is a
professional qualification. According to us, when the qualifications re-
E quired "a consistently good academic record with first or high second class
(55% marks/grade B in the seven point scale) Master's Degree in any
subject"; (emphasis added) it sh~ll mean an academic qualification like
Master of Arts. The said requirement was prescribed with "a consistently
good academic record". That Master's Degree shall merui Degree of
F Master of Arts in any subject, is apparent also from the fact that apart
from that degree the candidate was required to possess also Degree in
Education" which will mean B.Ed. or M.Ed. Normally if the expression
"Master's Degree" was to include even the Master's Degree in Education
(M .Ed.) there was no necessity of prescribing the third requirement of a
G "Degree in Education".
If the claim of the appellant that "Master's Degree" shall include a
Degree of Master of Education, is accepted, it will lead to an anomalous
position. A person having secured third division in M.A. who cannot be
H considered by any university even for the post of Lecturer, will become
DR. PRIT SINGH v. S.K MANGAL [N.P. SINGH, J.] 343
qualified for being appointed as a Principle of any College, if later he A
secures a high second class marks in M.Ed. Examination by completing a
course of one year. It need not be pointed out that the sole object of
prescribing qualification that the candidate must have a consistently good
academic record with first or high second class Master's Degree for
appointment to the post of a Principal, is to select a most suitable person B
in order to maintain excellence and standard of teaching in the institution
apart from administration. In the present case there is no dispute that in
the Master of Arts Examination, the appellant secured only 47.1 % marks
which is not even the second division. We were informed that in the
concerned University, second division is 50% and above. The appellant C
had not secured even second class marks in his Master of Art Examina-
tion whereas the requirement was first or high second class (55%). The
irresistible conclusion is that on the relevant date the appellant did not
possess the requisite qualifications.
We fail to understand as to how the Vice-Chancellor who himself D
was of the opinion that the appellant did not possess the requisite
qualifications for the post of !'rin~ipal and who had refused to approve
the said appointment, later apprnved the same appointment on 13th
November, 1987 with effect from 16th October, 1987. It has rightly been
submitted on behalf of the respondents that the Vice-Chancellor ap- E
proved the appointment after 15th October, 1987 when the amendment
was made in the prescribed qualifications for the post of Principal of a
recognised College of Education. If he was not eligible for appointment
in terms of the prescribed qualifications on the date he was appointed by
the Managing Committee subject to the approval of the Vice- Chancellor, F
then later he cannot become eligible after the qualifications for the post
were amended. As such we are in agreement with the view expressed by
the High Court, that on the date of the appointment the appellant did
not possess the requisite qualifications and as such his appointment had
to be quashed. G
We are informed that on basis of the new qualifications prescribed,
applications have been invited and the appellant has also applied for the
said post. All steps should be taken expeditiously and without any further
delay to complete the process of selection and appointment for the post H
344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS[1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A of the Principal of the said College in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid directions this appeal is dismissed. But in the
circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
V.P.R. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "principal appointment"Sign in to search