Holding

A person must possess the essential qualifications prescribed by the applicable rules, and experience as a Laboratory Assistant or Teacher Grade‑III does not meet the required teaching experience or educational qualifications for promotion to Headmaster.

Summary

The respondents, initially appointed as Laboratory Assistants and later serving as Teacher Grade‑III, applied for promotion to the post of Headmaster of secondary schools under a Rajasthan Public Service Commission advertisement. The Commission rejected their applications, holding that their experience did not satisfy the eligibility criteria prescribed in the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970 and the Rajasthan Education (Subordinate Services) Rules, 1971, which require a bachelor's degree and five years of teaching experience in specified categories. The respondents filed writ petitions; a single judge of the High Court dismissed them, but a Division Bench later allowed the petitions. The Supreme Court examined whether experience as a Laboratory Assistant or Teacher Grade‑III could be counted towards the required teaching experience. It held that essential qualifications cannot be relaxed absent express statutory power, and that the respondents' qualifications and experience did not meet the explicit requirements for the Headmaster post. Consequently, the Court set aside the Division Bench judgment and allowed the appeals, confirming the Commission’s decision.

Issues considered

Whether experience as a Laboratory Assistant or Teacher Grade‑III satisfies the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Headmaster of secondary schools under the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970 and the Rajasthan Education (Subordinate Services) Rules, 1971.

Subjects

promotionheadmasterteaching experienceessential qualificationRajasthan Educational Service Rulessubordinate servicespublic service commissioneligibilitywrit petitionselection committee

Judgment

RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION A
v.
KAILA KUMAR PALIWAL AND ANR.

MAY2, 2007

(S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] B

Service Law-Promotion-To the Post of Headmaster, Secondary
Schools-Entitlement of Teacher Grade Ill, initially appointed as Laboratory
Assistant-Held: Such teachers not entitled to promotion to the post of C
Headmaster-In order to be considered for promotion to a higher post,
person must possess essential qualificativn-Such qualification cannot be
relaxed even by the Selection Committee in absence of express power for the
same-Determination of criteria for qualification would depend on the rules
operating in thefield-Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970-Rajasthan
Education (Subordinate Services) Rules, 1971. D
The respondents were initially appointed as Laboratory Assistants. They
had also worked on the post of Teacher Grade III. Their cases for recruitment
to the post of Headmaster of the Secondary Schools were not considered by
the appellant-Commission. Their Writ Petitions seeking direction to call them
for interview was dismissed by Single Judge of High Court. In intra-court E
appeal, Division Bench of High Court allowed the plea of the respondents.

In appeals to this Court, the question for consideration was as to whether
the experience of respondents as Laboratory Assistant and Teacher Grade III
entitled them to be considered for promotion to the post of Headmaster.
F
Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Posts of Head Master are governed by Rajasthan Educational
Service Rules, 1970. Five years' teaching experience is required for
consideration for appointment to the post of Head Master which in turn is G
referable to teaching in certain capacity on certain categories or posts.
Therefore, those who had been holding posts of Teacher Grade III with the
minimum educational qualification of Matriculation or Secondary Education
with a certificate in training would not be entitled to teaching in secondary
classes or higher classes in view of the scope and purport of both 1970 Rules
1131 H
1132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A as also Rajasthan Education (Subordinate Services) Rules, 1971, the
Commission was correct in its view. ~
(Paras 13, 14 and l 7) 11137-C, D, E; 1138-A-B)

1.2. In the instant case, the rules are absolutely clear and explicit. Not ~1

only the posts of Head Master is governed by a separate set of rules, the posts
B ofTeacher Grade lil provides for a promotional avenue to the posts of Teacher
Grade II which in turn provides for promotion to the other grades of teacher.
It is, thus, inconceivable that experience gained by a person holding the post
of Teacher Grade Ill governed by the subordinate services rules would be
entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Head Master although
c experience of teaching in particular classes is relevant therefor.
(Paras 26 and 27) (1140-F, G)

A. Umarani v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Ors., [2004) 7 SCC
112, relied on.

State of Rajasthan v. Manmohar Singh and Ors., [2003) 1 CDR 839,
D
disapproved.

2.1. A person in order to be considered for promotion to a higher post
must possess the essential qualification. If he does not do so, he cannot be
considered therefor. Even the selection committee in absence of any express
E .power conferred upon it cannot relax such essential qualification.
(Para 20) [1138-D)

J.C. Yadav and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., [1990) 2 SCC 189
and Dr. Bhanu Prasad Panda v. Chancellor, Sambalpur University and Ors.,
[2001) 8 sec 532, referred to.
F
2.2. Recruitment to a post must be made strictly in terms of the Rules
operating in the field. Essential qualification must be possessed by a person
as on the date of issuance of the notification or as specified in the rules and
only in absence thereof, the qualification required till the last date of filing of
the application would be the relevant date. (Para 21) [1138-E, F)
G
Ashok Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. Chander Shekhar and Anr., [1997) 4
SCC 18; UP. Public Service Commission U.P., Allahabad and Anr. v. Alpana, ., ~

[1994) 2 SCC 723 and Harpal Kaur Chahal (Smt.) v. Director, Punjab
Instructions, Punjab and Anr., (1995) Supp. 4 SCC 706, referred to.
H 2.3. Even where there exists a provision for relaxation, for example ....
RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION'· KAILA KUMAR PALIWAL [S.B. SINHA, I.) \ \33

relaxation in age, the same must be strictly complied with. A
(Para 22) (1138-G)

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. v. Sajal Kumar Roy and Ors.,
(2006) 8 SCC 671 and P.K. Kamachandra Iyer and Ors. v. Union of India and
Ors., (1984) 2 SCC 141, referred to.
B
2.4. The question as to whether a person fulfils the criteria of teaching
experience or not would depend upon the rules operating in the field. When
i the rules are clear and explicit, the same has to be given effect to. Only in a
case where the rules are not clear, the candidate concerned must place adequate
material to show that he fulfils the requisite qualification. C
[Para 23) (1138-H; 1139-A)

State of Bihar and Anr. etc. etc. v. Asis Kumar Mukherjee and Ors., etc.
etc. A.I.R. (1975) SC 192, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2317 of2007.
D
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 02.09.2005 of the High Court
of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D B Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.
785 of2004 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7031 of 2003.
WITH

C.A. No. 2318 of2007. E
Manish Kumar, Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, Madhurima Tatia and
Aruneshwar Gupta for the Appellant.
B.D. Sharma and Vikram Jeet Sikand for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. Respondents herein were Laboratory Assistants in the Government
High Schools. They were appointed on or about 24.1.1992 to the said posts.
.~
They worked in the post of Teacher Grade-Ill from 13.10.1997. G
3. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short as "Commission")
issued an advertisement on or about 7.3 .2002 for the posts of Headmaster of
Secondary Schools. The minimum qualification and other conditions laid
down therefor in terms of Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970 are as
under: H
S. Name of Method of Minimum Post or posts Minimum Maximum
No Post recruitment qualification and from which qualifications age limit for
with experience for direct promotion in to and experience direct
percentage recruitment be made required for recruitment
promorion
I 2 3 4 5 6 7
[Ia Headmasters, 50% by !(a) Bachelor's Teacher's in 1.(a) Bachelors 33 years
Sec. School direct degree or diploma grade II in Degree with a
for boys recruitment in education Section C, D, degree or
and 50% by (b) Experience of E and F of diploma in
promotion teaching High/Jr. the Schedule Education
HSS/Hr. Sec. Class appended
for 5 years or (b) Experience
experience of of teaching
administrative charge High/Jr. Hr.
of Middle Schools Sec./Higher
for 4 years and of Sec./classes
teaching High/Jr. for 5 years or
HSS/Hr. Sec. classes experience of
for 3 years Administrative
OR charge of
Five years' experience Middle Schools
on the posts of for 4 years and
Teachers Grade II or of teaching

_,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
above under any of High/Jr. Hr. Sec./
the Sections C,D, E Hr. Sec. classes
and F of the Schedule for 3 years
appended to the
Rajasthan Educational OR
Subordinate Service
Rules, 1971] Qualifications
prescribed in
Note I. Degree or 1(a) of column
Diploma referred to 4 and should
above shall be of a have been
University established exempted by
by Law in India or of the Board
foreign University of Sec.
recognised as Education,
equivalent hereto by Rajasthan from
the Government possessing of
qualifications
Note 2. Teaching in prescribed in
RTS!BSTC/Schools will sub-rule (I)
be deemed as (b) in regard
equivalent to teaching to the number
in High/Jr. Higher Sec./
Hr. Sec. Classes.
of years -c:;
VI
1136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 5 S.C.R.

A 4. Inter alia on the premise that the respondents did not fulfil the
requisite eligibility criteria contained in the said rules, their cases for recruitment
to the posts of Headmaster of the secondary schools were not considered by
the Commission.
5. Indisputably, in terms of the said Rules, 50% of the post of Head
B Master were to be filled up by direct recruitment; whereas the rest 50% by
promotion.
6. Respondents filed a writ petition praying inter alia for issuance of a
writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the Commission to call them
for interview for consideration of their appointments to the said posts pursuant
C to the aforementioned advertisement dated 7.3.2002 having regard to their
experience as Laboratory Assistants. A learned Single Judge of the High
Court by a Judgment and Order dated 17.12.2003 relying on or on the basis
of an earlier decision of a coordinate Bench of the said Court in Smt. Manjulata
v. RPSC & Anr., SBCWP No. 421/1997 disposed on 24. l.1997, dismissed the
said petition. Intra court appeals were preferred thereagainst and by reason
D of the impugned judgment, the Division Bench following another Division
Bench judgment rendered in State of Rajasthan v Manmohar Singh & Ors.,
(2003) 1 CDR 839, allowed the same.
7. The State of Rajasthan and Rajasthan Public Service Commission are
thus, before us.
E
8. The only question which arises for consideration in these appeals
is as to whether the High Court was correct in opining that the experience
gained by the respondents while working as Laboratory Assistants or Teacher
Grade-III satisfies the requirements laid down in the said advertisement dated
7.32002.
F 9. The services of the teachers working in the schools in the State of
Rajasthan are governed by the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970 and
Rajasthan Education (Subordinate Services) Rules, 1971. Subordinate service
consists of the posts as specified in the schedule appended thereto.A Teacher
Grade-III as also a Laboratory Assistant come within the purview of the term
G 'subordinate services'. The minimum qualification for holding the post of a
Teacher Grade-III is Matriculation with certificate of training, whereas that of
Laboratory Assistant is Secondary with Science as an optional subject.
10. The Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970, on the other hand,
deal with appointment inter alia of Head Masters, Assistant Head Masters,
H
RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. KAILA KUMAR PALIWAL [S.B. SINHA, I.] j lJ7

Deputy Inspectors of Schools etc; the minimum qualifications wherefor are A
Bachelors' degree and Degree or Diploma in Education.
11. In the Rajasthan Education (Subordinate Services) Rules, 1971,
there exist posts of Teachers Grade-II. Post of Teacher Grade-III, Laboratory
Assistants and Teachers in deaf and dumb, blind schools provide for avenues
of promotion to the post of Teachers Grade-II, Sub-Deputy Inspectors and B
Enforcement Assistant etc.
12. The said posts also provide for avenue, to the posts of Senior
Teachers which was substituted for Teachers Grade-II by notification dated
i
6.1.1990. Indisputably, there are certain other posts which are filled up by
promotion inter alia from amongst the category of Teacher Grade-II as for C
example Lecturer etc., Technical Testing Assistants in Bureau of Educational
and Vocational Guidance etc.
13. Posts of Head Master, it would bear repetition to state, are governed
by the 1970 Rules. Five years' teaching experience is required for consideration
for appointment to the post of Head Master which in turn is referable to D
teaching in certain capacity on certain categories or posts.
14. It is, therefore, difficult to accept that those who had been holding
posts of Teacher Grade-III with the minimum educational qualification of
Matriculation or Secondary Education with a certificate in training would be
entitled to teaching in secondary classes or higher classes. E
15. In the case of Manju/ata (supra), the Rajasthan High Court
whereupon the learned Single Judge placed reliance upon, stated;
"A show cause notice had, therefore, been issued to the respondent-
RPSC, who on appearance, has informed this Court that the petitioner
does not qualify for the post as she has been working as Lab. F
Assistant, which is a lower post than the post of regular teachers and
her experience as a Lab. Assistant does not give her any credit
towards teaching experience. Shri Kumawat on behalf ofR.P.S.C. also
informed that this question had been ascertained from a Body of the
Experts by the R.P.S.C. in which the Committee has given its opinion G
in the negative, and hence, no Lab. Assistants are held to be eligible
for the post of Head-Mistress/Head Master."
16. It is, therefore, evident that Public Service Commission which is an
expert body upon obtaining opinion from other experts came to the conclusion
that for the purpose of appointment to the post of Head Master of a Secondary H
1138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A School, whether by way of direct recruitment or promotion, qualifications ·~
requisite for a candidate as in the post of Teacher Grade-III are not sufficient.
17. We, having regard to the scope and purport of both 1970 Rules as
also 1971 Rules, are of the opinion that the Commission was correct in its
view.
B 18. The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Manmohar
Singh (supra) was considering a case of clubbing of experiences of Grade-III
teacher with that of Grade-II teacher. It proceeded on the premise that once
an academic qualification was prescribed, a person having such qualification t
need not acquire the teaching experience separately both as Grade-II and
C Grade-III teacher.
19. The learned judges with respect, were not correct in taking such a
view.
20. A person in order to be considered :or promotion to a higher post
must possess the essential qualification. If he does not do so, he cannot be
D considered therefore. Even the selection committee in absence of any express
power conferred upon it cannot relax such essential qualification. See J.C.
Yadav and Ors v State of Haryana and Ors., [ 1990] 2 SCC 189 and Dr. Bhanu
Prasad Panda v Chancellor, Sambalpur University and Ors., [2001] 8 SCC
532.
E 21. Recruitment to a post must be made strictly in terms of the Rules
operating in the field. Essential qualification must be possessed by a person
as on the date of issuance of the notification or as specified in the rules and
only in absence thereof, the qualification acquired till the last date of filing
of the application would be the relevant date. See Ashok Kumar Sharma and
F Ors. v. Chander Shekhar and Anr., [ 1997] 4 SCC 18, UP. Public Service
Commission UP., Allahabad and .4nr v. Alpana, [1994] 2 SCC 723 and Harpal
Kaur Chahal (Smt.) v. Director, Punjab Instructions, Punjab and Anr., [1995]
Supp 4 sec 706.
22. Even where there exists a provision for relaxation, for example
G relaxation in age, the same must be strictly complied with. {See Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. v. Sajal Kumar Roy and Ors., [2006] 8 SCC
671 and P.K. Ramachandra Iyer and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., [1984]
2 sec 141}.
23. We are not oblivious of the fact that the question as to whether
H a person fulfils the criteria of teaching experience or not would depend upon
RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. KAILA KUMAR PALIWAL {S.B. SINHA,!.) l 1J9
the rules operating in the field. When the rules are clear and explicit, the same A
has to be given effect to. Only in a case where the rules are not clear, the
candidate concerned must place adequate material to show that he fulfils the
requisite qualification. {See The State ofBihar and Anr etc. etc. v. Asis Kumar
Mukherjee and Ors. etc. etc., A.LR. (1975) SC 192}.
24. We may notice that in P.K. Ramachandra Iyer (supra) this Court B
held;
"31. In this context one more submission may be disposed of. It was
said that the committee consisted of experts and they were highly
qualified persons who would be able to evaluate and assess the
relative merits of each of the candidates before it and the Court is C
least competent to do so and therefore it would be unwise to substitute
experts' decision by Court's decision. In this connection reliance was
placed on Dr. MC. Gupta v. Dr. Arun Kumar Gupta, in which this
Court held as under :
When selection is made by the Commission aided and advised D
by experts having technical experience and high academic
qualifications in the specialist field, probing teaching/research
• experience in technical subjects, the Courts should be slow to
interfere with the opinion expressed by experts unless there are
allegations of mala tides against them. It would normally be
prudent and safe for the courts to leave the decision of academic E
matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they
face than the courts generally can be. Undoubtedly, even such
a body if it were to contravene rules and regulations binding
upon it in making the selection and recommending the selectees
for appointment, the Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction F
to enforce rule oflaw, may interfere in a writ petition under Article
226..... .
It was urged that once it is conceded that as the power of selection
and appointment vests in the ICAR, the Court should not usurp that
power merely because it would have chosen a different person as
better qualified (see State of Bihar v. Dr. Asis Kumar Mukherjee). G
Undoubtedly, the Court must look with respect upon the performance
of duties by experts in the respective fields as has been said in Dr.
M.C. Gupta case. However, the task of ushering a society based on
rule of law is entrusted to this Court and it cannot abdicate its
functions. Once it is most satisfactorily established that the selection H
1140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A committee did not have the power to relax essential qualification
pertaining to experience, the entire process of selection of respondent
6 was in contravention of the established norms prescribed by
advertisement and power of the selection committee and procedure of
fair and just selection and equality in the matter of public employment
and to rectify resultant injustice and establish constitutional value
B this Court must interfere. Selection of respondent 6 is contrary to
rules and orders and in violation of prescribed norms of qualification.
He was ineligible for the post when selected: His selection and
appointment would be required to be quashed and set aside."
25. In A. Umarani v. Regist:ar, Cooperative Societies and Ors., [2004]
C 7 SCC 112, this Court held;
"Regularisation, in our considered opinion, is not and cannot be the
mode of recruitment by any "State" within the meaning of Article 12
of the Constitution of India or any body or authority governed by a
statutory Act or the Rules framed thereunder. It is also now well
D settled that an appointment made in violation of the mandatory
provisions of the statute and in particular, ignoring the minimum
educational qualification and other essential qualification would be
wholly illegal. Such illegality cannot be cured by taking recourse to
regularisation. (See State of HP. v. Suresh Kumar Verma)"
E (Emphasis Added)
26. In the instant case, the rules are absolutely clear and explicit.
27. In the instant case, not only the posts of Head Master is governed
by a separate set of rules, as has been noticed hereinbefore, the posts of
Teacher Grade-III provides for a promotional avenue to the posts of Teacher
F Grade-II which in tum provides for promotion to the other grades of teacher.
It is, thus, in our opinion inconceivable that experience gained by a person
holding the post of Teacher Grade-III governed by the subordinate services
rules would be entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Head
Master although experience of teaching in particular classes is relevant therefor.
G 28. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned Judgment of the
Division Bench cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. The
Appeals are allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case,
there shall be no order as to costs.
K.K.T. Appeals allowed.