V. Ranganathan vs N. Baskaran & Ors

separate writ petitions, being W.P. Nos.41237 of 2

2005 and 10771 of 2006, challenging the order

passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Chennai Bench, on 7th December, 2005 in O.A. No.689

of 2004. The relief prayed for by the Petitioner

herein, who was the Applicant in the Original

Application, was for a direction upon the Union

Public Service Commission (U.P.S.C.) to appoint him

to the post of Principal in a Higher Secondary

School in Pondicherry under the Scheduled Caste

category instead of Shri N. Baskaran, pursuant to

order No.F.1/114/2003-R.III dated 16th July, 2004,

issued by the said Respondent. The said relief was

subsequently amended in the following manner :-

"Under these circumstances, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to implead the third respondent as party respondent in O.A.No.689/2004 so as to quash the appointment order issued by the 3rd respondent in his letter in Ref.No.A.12012/CS/EBN/E. 1/2004 dated 13.8.2004 and thus render justice."

3 2. The facts, which led to filing of the two writ

petitions, indicate that the Secretary, U.P.S.C.,

invited applications for appointment to three

vacancies to the post of Principal, Government

Higher Secondary Schools in Pondicherry, by

Advertisement No.17 published in the "Employment

News" on 13th September, 2003. Out of the said three

vacancies, one was reserved for a candidate from

the Scheduled Castes category. It appears that in

the vacancies for candidates belonging to Scheduled

Castes, 48 applications were received and on the

basis of preliminary scrutiny, 11 candidates were

short-listed and called for interview on 9.3.2004.

Both, Shri N. Baskaran and Shri V. Ranganathan, the

Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 in Writ Petition

No.41237/2005, were among the 11 candidates who

were called for the interview. Apparently, based

on his performance in the interview, Shri N. 4

Baskaran was selected for the post as per the

Selection List published on 16.7.2004. It is

thereafter that Shri V. Ranganathan filed the

above-mentioned O.A.No.689 of 2004 before the

Chennai Bench of the Central Administrative

Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its order dated

7.12.2005, allowed the Original Application and

also directed the official respondents to appoint

the Applicant as the Principal of the concerned

Higher Secondary School. Aggrieved thereby, Shri

N. Baskaran challenged such selection in Writ

Petition No.41237 of 2005.

3. One of the conditions which had to be fulfilled

by the candidate for being eligible to be appointed

in terms of the advertisement was to have 10 years'

teaching experience in a Higher Secondary School.

As per Shri N. Baskaran's version, he had more than

18 years total experience of teaching. However, 5

according to the Union Public Service Commission,

as far as the Higher Secondary level is concerned,

he had only 10 years and 4 months of teaching

experience. It is Shri Baskaran`s case that he

also possessed a Post Graduate Degree in Chemistry

and a Post Graduate Degree in Education. It was,

therefore, claimed on his behalf that he was fully

qualified for selection and appointment to the post

of Principal of a Higher Secondary School.

4. On Shri N. Baskaran's behalf it was submitted

that the service rendered by him in the Higher

Secondary Schools as well as at the Higher

Secondary level should be taken into account for

calculating the period of qualifying service. It

was mentioned that Shri Baskaran had handled

Chemistry as a subject at a Higher Secondary level.

That apart, the educational qualification for a

teacher working in a Polytechnic is the same as 6

that of teachers working in Higher Secondary

Schools. In addition to the above, as far as the

service rendered by Shri Baskaran in the District

Institute of Education and Training is concerned,

the same would also have to be taken into

consideration for computing the years of service at

a Higher Secondary level as the educational

qualifications prescribed for teachers in Higher

Secondary Schools and the District Institute of

Education are the same and both the posts are

interchangeable and carry the same scale of pay.

5. As far as Shri V. Ranganathan is concerned, it

was stated on behalf of the U.P.S.C. that although

he had been short-listed and was also called for

the interview to fill up the vacancies in question,

he could not be recommended by the Interview Board

for the post of Principal as his merit position at

Serial No.10 did not bring him within the zone of 7

consideration for filling up the said post.

Accordingly, his case was not considered for the

purpose of filling up one of such vacancies.

6. The Tribunal rejected the contentions made on

behalf of Shri Baskaran and allowed the application

filed by the Petitioner herein and directed the

concerned respondents to appoint him as the

Principal of the Higher Secondary School.

Challenging the said order of the Tribunal, the

Respondent No.1 herein filed Writ Petition No.41237

of 2005 and the UPSC filed Writ Petition No.10771

of 2006.

7. Before the High Court it was the case of the

U.P.S.C. that the name of Shri V. Ranganathan was

not recommended for the post of Principal as his

merit position in the Selection List did not bring

him within the zone of consideration and since Shri 8

N. Baskaran had the required teaching experience of

10 years, he was recommended for appointment.

8. It was also the case of the U.P.S.C. that as

far as Polytechnics are concerned, after the

completion of the 10th standard, instead of joining

the 11th standard, students join diploma courses,

and, as such, duties at the Polytechnic level is

equivalent to studies at the Higher Secondary

level. Whenever there was necessity, the

Government had spared Shri Baskaran's services to

the Polytechnics and he had worked at the Higher

Secondary level in the said Polytechnics. The

further case of the Respondent No.1 was that having

obeyed the order passed by the Government from time

to time, the same could not be placed against him

when it came to computing the period of his

service.

9

9. In addition to the above, it was also pointed

out that the U.P.S.C. had produced the selection

list in which the Petitioner herein has been ranked

at number 10 in the reserve list and even in the

reserve list there were three more candidates

placed above him. The High Court allowed the two

Writ Petitions Nos.41237 of 2005 and 10771 of 2006

and the other pending applications were closed.

10. The stand on behalf of the U.P.S.C. appears to

have been strongly opposed on behalf of the

Petitioner herein. It was contended that if the

interpretation given by the Tribunal with regard to

experience, as indicated in the advertisement, is

to be accepted, the service rendered in Higher

Secondary Schools and also at the Higher Secondary

level, would have to be taken into consideration

for determining the period of qualifying service. 10

11. Appearing for the Petitioner herein, Mr. K.V.

Vishwanathan, learned Senior Advocate, submitted

that the findings of the High Court were in places

at variance with the findings of the Tribunal in

computing the years of experience at the Higher

Secondary level which Shri N. Baskaran had

acquired. It was pointed out that it was the High

Court's own finding that since the system of Higher

Secondary Schools is in vogue only in some States,

it would be totally impossible to go by the term

"Higher Secondary School" which was not in use in

the other States.

12. According to Mr. Vishwanathan, this was a

classic case for issuance of writ in the nature of

quo-warranto since undoubtedly the Respondent No.1

had usurped the right of the Petitioner to be

appointed as Principal of the Higher Secondary

School in question. It was also urged that the 11

very procedure adopted for selection of candidates

to fill up the three vacant posts of Principal was

invalid and the Petitioner was entitled to be

considered for appointment to the post of Principal

of one of the three Schools on the basis of his

qualifications and experience.

13. Mr. Gurukrishna Kumar and Ms. Binu Tamta,

learned Advocates appearing for the Respondent No.1

and the U.P.S.C. respectively, both contended that

there are different grades of teachers in the

Higher Secondary Schools/Senior Secondary

Schools/Inter Colleges in the country which

comprise of Classes VI to XII and not all teachers

teach students in Classes XI and XII which

constitute the core classes of the Higher Secondary

Schools. It was further contended that the

interpretation of experience of 10 years teaching

in Higher Secondary Schools was meant to comprise 12

such teaching experience of students belonging to

the Higher Secondary Section for the purpose of

short listing of candidates for selection to the

post.

14. Having considered the submissions made on

behalf of the respective parties, we see no reason

to differ with the views expressed by the High

Court regarding the work experience of the

Respondent No.1 at the Higher Secondary level which

was found to be 10 years and 4 months, whereas the

period of qualifying service was 10 years. The

methodology adopted by the respondents in arriving

at such finding is fair and transparent and also

reasonable. Furthermore, as has been pointed out

by the High Court, the Petitioner herein had not

even prayed for quashing of the appointment issued

to the Respondent No.1 on 13th August, 2004, and his

prayer in the Original Application before the 13

Tribunal was limited to a direction being given to

the U.P.S.C. to appoint him to the post of

Principal in a Higher Secondary School in

Pondicherry under the Scheduled Caste category

instead of the Respondent No.1 herein. In addition

to the above, no opportunity was also given to the

Secretary, Education Department, Government of

Pondicherry, to answer the questions which had been

raised by the Petitioner before setting aside the

appointment of the Respondent No.1 herein.

15. However, what is of cardinal importance is the

fact that from the selection list produced by the

U.P.S.C., it will be seen that the Petitioner

herein had been placed at rank No.10 in the reserve

list and even in the reserve list there were three

more candidates placed above him. Considering the

same, in agreement with the views expressed by the

High Court, we are also not inclined to interfere 14

with the order impugned and the Special Leave

Petition is, accordingly, dismissed, but without

any order as to costs.

................................................J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)

................................................J. (A.K. PATNAIK) New Delhi Dated:16.09.2010