ORDER

1. The controversy in the present petition relates to the eligibility of the 1st respondent to occupy the post of the Principal of the Delhi Kannada Senior Secondary School which is being run in New Delhi. The 1st respondent was appointed as the Principal of the school in the year 1981. The statutory rules prevalent at the relevant time prescribed the essential qualifications for the said post as follows:

(i) Masters degree with at least 2nd Division from a recognised university or equivalent.

(ii) A degree in teaching from a recognised university or equivalent.

(iii) Experience of 10 years teaching as a Vice-Principal/P.G.T. (Post-graduate Teacher) in a Higher Secondary School or Inter-College.

The condition with regard to the 2nd Division was relaxable in the case of the candidates belonging to the same school and also in the case of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates. The desirable qualifications were:

(i) Experience in administrative charge of a recognised Higher Secondary School/Inter-College.

(ii) Doctorate Degree.

(iii) M.Ed. degree from a recognised university.

2. Admittedly, the 1st respondent who did not belong to the same school had M.A. degree in Political Science with third class with 41.1% aggregate marks, although he had his M.Ed, in second class. Respondent 1, according to the petitioners, however, did not also have the required experience of 10 years teaching, since he was working as an Inspector of Schools prior to his selection as the Principal. The schools which he was inspecting had also classes only up to the 8th standard. Thus, except the degree of M.Ed. which he possessed, he did not have the other two statutory essential qualifications at the time of his appointment as the Principal. According to the petitioners, who are the members of the teaching staff of the same school but not aspirants for the post of Principal, the fact that the 1st respondent lacked the two essential qualifications came to their light for the first time in 1990 and, therefore, they moved the High Court by a writ of quo warranto against the 1st respondent. The High Court, however, dismissed the petition on the ground of laches and also on the ground that the petitioners had not asserted in the writ petition that the advertisement inviting the applications for the post of the Principal was published before the 1st respondent was selected as the Principal.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent contended that no writ of quo warranto could be issued against the school which was admittedly managed by a private organisation or against the 1st respondent who was an employee of such organisation. It was also contended that the 1st respondent had been holding office of the Principal from 1981 and it was for the first time that his appointment was challenged in 1990, i.e., after a lapse of about 9 years. The writ jurisdiction being discretionary, the High Court was right in refusing the relief. Lastly, it was contended that the 1st respondent was duly qualified according to the statutory rules. While not disputing that the 1st respondent had only a third class degree in M.A., it was urged that since he had M.Ed. in 2nd Division, he should be deemed to have satisfied the requirement of 2nd Division in the Post-graduate degree as M.Ed, was equivalent to M.A. As regards his teaching experience, it was contended that every teacher in a High School was teaching up to 11th Standard and since all High Schools had 11 Standards, all Assistant Masters/teachers like him were teaching up to the 11th Standard. It was also contended that when he was acting as Education Officer and Inspector of Schools, he was also teaching.

4. The contention of the respondents that M.Ed, (sic M.A.) 2nd Division was equivalent to M.A. (sic M.Ed.) 2nd Division is obviously fallacious. The former is the academic qualification while the latter a professional qualification. Secondly, the course of the former is whole-time spread over no less than tw