Judgment

N. P. SINGH

( 1 ) PECIAL leave granted.

( 2 ) 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 College ).

( 3 ) AN advertisement was issued on 30/06/1986 inviting applications for the post of Principal of the said College. After interview of the applicants 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 22/07/1986. 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 communicated to the Managing Committee of the College by a letter dated 24/08/1987 However, later the Vice-Chancellor approved the appointment of the appellant by his order dated 13/11/1987 with effect from 16/10/1987.

( 4 ) THE validity of the appointment of the appellant was questioned in the connected writ application on the ground that on the date of appointment the appellant did not possess the requisite qualifications. It was pointed out that as the appellant did not possess the requisite qualifications, Vice-Chancellor did not approve his appointment but later he approved the appointment only with effect from 16/10/1987 when the qualifications prescribed for Principal were amended on 15/10/1987. It was suggested that this change was introduced with mala fide intention in order to facilitate the appointment of the appellant.

( 5 ) 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, 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.

( 6 ) IN order to appreciate the controversy it will be proper to quote the requisite qualifications prescribed for the Principal of a recognised college of, Education, which existed and which were replaced on October 15,1987.

( 7 ) THE academic records of writ petitioner-respondent 1 and the appellant are as follows:

FOR the post of Principal in a recognised College of Education, three qualifications were prescribed (i) A consistently good academic record; (ii) with first or high second class (55% marks/grade B in the seven point scale) Masters Degree in any subject and (iii) a Degree in Education of an Indian University or equivalent degree of foreign University.

( 8 ) 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 Masters Degree Examination.

( 9 ) ACCORDING to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, "masters Degree" shall include even Masters 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 masters Degree in Education, having secured more than 55% 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 Education".

( 10 ) AS a first impression this argument is attractive especially because the qualifications aforesaid simply speak of "masters 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 masters Degree in Arts (M