1. Appointment to the post of Principal — Dispute over academic qualifications and the validity of relaxation granted by the selection commission. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 68
1999(1) Supreme 199
Supreme Court of India
(From Allahabad High Court)
K. Venkataswami & S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.
Dr. Ram Sevak Singh -Appellant
versus
Dr. U.P. Singh & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6543 of 1997
With
Civil Appeal No. 6544 of 1997
Decided on 21-1-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : U.U. Lalit, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1 in both the Appeals : B.L. Yadav, Sr. Advocate, M.P.S. Tomar, Ms. Sandhya Goswami, Advocates.
For the Respondent Nos. 2-3 in C.A. No. 6543/97 : Kamlendra Misra, Advocate for R.B. Misra, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 4 in both the Appeals : Prashant Kumar, Advocate for Sunil Ambwani, Advocate.
Important Points
The Supreme Court held that an M.Ed. degree is a valid Master's degree qualification for appointment as Principal if the college teaches education, distinguishing it from cases where a Master's degree and a degree in education are required as separate, additional qualifications.
Subject
Education Law - Qualifications for Appointment as Principal
Act Referred
SERVICE LAW: .
Headnote
Service Law-Appointment of Principal-U.P. Higher Education Service Commission-Qualification prescribed for post of Principal was first or high second class in Masters decree in one of subjects taught in the College - Appellant secured third division in M.A. and high second class in M.Ed.-Service Commission recommended appellants’ candidature giving relaxation in respect of requirement of, consistently good academic record in view of vast experience-Respondent’s plea that since appellant secured less than 54% mark in M.A. he did not qualify-High Court holding M.Ed. degree not an academic qualification and as such appellant lacked educational qualification-Not correct-College imparts education in teaching as well-Masters degree in Education, therefore, is a degree in respect of subject taught in the College-Judgment of High Court set aside. (Paras 2 to 5)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a professional degree in education constitutes an academic qualification for appointment as Principal and whether relaxation of academic record was permissible. (Para 2 , 4 )
3. M.Ed. is a valid qualification for Principal if the college teaches education, distinguishing it from cases where a Master's and education degree are separate requirements. (Para 5 )
4. A professional degree in a subject taught by the institution satisfies the requirement for a Master's degree in a subject taught in the college. (Para 5 )
5. Appeals allowed — High Court order set aside — Writ petition dismissed. (Para 6 )
6. Does a professional degree like M.Ed. count as a Master's degree for the post of Principal?
Yes, if the college imparts education in teaching, a Master's Degree in Education (M.Ed.) is a degree in a subject taught in the college and thus satisfies the qualification requirement. (Para 5 )
7. How is the requirement of a Master's degree interpreted when the post requires a degree in a subject taught in the college?
The requirement is satisfied if the candidate possesses a Master's degree in any subject taught by the institution, including professional degrees in those subjects. (Para 5 )
8. Can a professional degree be distinguished from an academic qualification in the context of appointment qualifications?
It depends on the specific requirements of the post; if the post requires a degree in a subject taught in the college, a professional degree in that subject is acceptable. (Para 5 )
Judgment
Rajendra Babu, J.-A vacancy having arisen in respect of a post of Principal in Raja Harpal Singh Degree College, Singramau, District Jaunpur, the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’) was advertised on November 30, 1989 to fill up the same. The appellant and respondent No. 1, amongst others, applied for the same. On the recommendation of the Commission the Committee of the Management of the said College issued an appointment letter in favour of the appellant.
2. A Writ Petition was filed by respondent No. 1 to restrain the appellant from functioning as Principal of the said College with other incidental reliefs. Contention put forth before the High Court in the course of the proceedings before it was as to whether the appellant possessed sufficient qualifications for appointment to the said post and whether relaxation granted by the Commission was appropriate. The High Court was of the view that the qualification possessed by him of Master’s Degree in Education is not an academic qualification. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Dr. Prit Singh v. S.K. Mandal1, the High Court took the view that a person having secured third division in M.A. who cannot be considered by any university even for the post of Lecturer cannot be qualified for being appointed as Principal of any college if later he secures a high second class marks in M.Ed. examination. On that basis the High Court allowed the writ petition and restrained the appellant from functioning as Principal. Hence these appeals by special leave.
Qualification required for appointment as Principal is as follows:-
(a) A consistently good academic record (that is to say, the overall record of all assessments throughout the academic career of a candidate) with first or higher second class (that is to say, with an aggregate of more than 54 per cent marks) Master’s degree or an equivalent degree of a foreign University in one of the subjects taught in the college or in a subject allied of inter-connected therewith; and
(b) A doctorate degree in one of the subjects taught in the college, with 7 years experience of teaching degree classes;
Provided that if a candidate possesses 15 years or more experience of teaching degree classes or 10 years or more experience of teaching Post-graduate classes or if he is or has been a confirmed Principal of four years or more standing of any Degree College, the Selection Committee may relax the requirement of doctorate degree.
Provided further that if the Selection Committee is of the view that the research work of a candidate as evident either from his thesis or from his published work is of a very high standard it may relax any of the qualifications prescribed in sub-clause (a).
The appellant possessed the following qualifications:-
“46.4% In Intermediate, 55.8% in B.Sc., 52% in B.Ed and 55% M.Ed. Thus in education respondent No. 4 had good record having average 51.40%. He had to his credit 16 years’ teaching experience and a vast administrative experience of about 16 years as Hostel Superintendent.”
3. The Commission granted relaxation in respect of the requirement of “consistently good academic record” in view of the vast experience possessed by him. The Commission proceeded on the basis that he had obtained 55% in M.Ed. examination and, therefore, became qualified to be appointed as Principal under Statute 11.13-A.
4. The contention put forth on behalf of respondent No. 1 is that the appellant possessed less than 54% marks in M.Sc. examination and, therefore, he did not satisfy the requirement of the aforesaid Statute 11.13-A. It is contended that the exemption could not be granted in respect of qualifications. However, the High Court proceeded to decide the matter on the basis that M.Ed. degree is not an academic qualification as referred to in Statute 11.13-A and Master’s Degree would not include M.Ed. degree which is a professional degree and as such is liable to be distinguished
