1987 Supreme(All) 361
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R.M. SAHAI, S.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.
Banwari Prasad Pandey - Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. - Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10504 of 1987
Decided on : Aug 24, 1987
Advocate appeared:
H.R. Mishra
The promotion of a Head Master of a Junior High School to Head Master of High School on upgradation of the institution is not a matter of right, and the selection process initiated under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, was terminated by the enactment of U. P. Act 5 of 1982.
Headnote:
EDUCATION - PROMOTION - HEAD MASTER OF JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - ENTITLEMENT TO PROMOTION AS HEAD MASTER OF HIGH SCHOOL ON UPGRADATION - SELECTION PROCESS - U. P. INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION ACT, 1921 - U. P. ACT 5 OF 1982 - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Head Master of a Junior High School since 1959, claimed entitlement to promotion as Head Master of High School when the institution was upgraded in November 1977. A selection process for the post of Head Master of High School was initiated in February 1981, but before it could be completed, U. P. Act 5 of 1982 was enacted, providing for appointment to the post through a Secondary Education Service Commission.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to promotion as Head Master of High School as a matter of right and that the selection process initiated under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, was terminated by the enactment of U. P. Act 5 of 1982.
Issues: 1. Whether a Head Master of a Junior High School is entitled to promotion as Head Master of High School on upgradation of the institution as a matter of right? 2. Whether the selection process for the post of Head Master of High School, initiated under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, was terminated by the enactment of U. P. Act 5 of 1982?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Regulation 2 of Chapter II of the regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, provides for promotion of Principal of High School on upgradation as Intermediate as a matter of right, but there is no such provision for Head Master of Junior High School. 2. Clause (g) of Regulation 2 provides that a Head Master of Junior High School not selected as Head Master of High School shall be reverted as Assistant teacher, indicating that promotion is not a matter of right. 3. Section 16 of U. P. Act 5 of 1982 provides that all appointments and promotions of teachers specified in the Schedule, including Head Master of High School, shall be made only on the recommendation of the Secondary Education Service Commission, and this provision applies to all selections, appointments, and promotions not yet completed and finalized.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
R. M. Sahai, J.
1. The only question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is a Head Master of a Junior High School is entitled to be promoted as Head Master of High School if the institution is upgraded as a matter of right if he is otherwise qualified. Allied to it is another question, namely if process for selection of the Head of the institution has started, did it cease or come to an end on enactment of U. P. Act 5 of 1982.
2. Facts are not in dispute. The petitioner had been working as Head Master of Junior High School since 1959. The institution was upgraded in November, 1977. Since the petitioner was qualified, he started working as Head Master of High School. In February, 1981 an advertisement was issued inviting applications for the post of Head Master of High School. In March, it is claimed that papers were submitted to the District Inspector of Schools for holding selection. But before any selection could be held by a selection committee, constituted under U. P. Intermediate Education Act and Regulations framed thereunder, U. P. Act 5 of 1982 was enacted providing for appointment to the post of Head Master through Secondary Education Service Commission, constituted under the Act. From affidavit filed by one Sheo Narain Singh, who has filed application for impleadment, it is clear that selection for the post of Principal of the High School was held by Commission, in which petitioner and senior most teacher of the college also appeared, but the commission selected Sheo Narain Singh.
Since petitioner claims that the Commission should not have held the selection under Act 5 of 1982, the appropriate time for petitioner to approach this Court was when selections were going to be held. It is unfair to take chance of being selected and having failed then to approach this court for quashing the selection as the Commission had no jurisdiction. The decision, however, need not rest on it as the submission of the petitioner that he was entitled to be appointed as a matter of right or that the selection process having started, the Commission could not held the selection is devoid of any substance. Regulation 2 of Chapter II of the regulations framed under U. P. Intermediate Education Act deals with manner and method of promotion of Principal of High School, if the institution is upgraded as Intermediate. Its various sub clauses indicate that the promotion is as a matter of right provided other conditions are satisfied. Not only that, if the District Inspector of Schools does not accord his approval or disapproval within three weeks, then it provides for deemed approval. There is no such provision in respect of Head Master of Junior High School. On the other hand, clause (g) provides only this much safeguard that in case a Head Master of Junior High School is not selected as Head Master of High School then he shall be reverted as Assistant teacher. Two things clearly emerge from it. One it is well established principle of interpretation that if in the same section or rule, similar situation in two different parts is dealt differently, then it has to be assumed that the legislature or the rule making authority deliberately did not provide for it to be dealt similarly. And what is clear and explicit cannot be held to be otherwise by implication. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that by analogy the provisions of promotion applicable to Principal of High School on its upgradation as Intermediate shall apply to Junior High School when it became High School cannot be accepted. It is not permissible to travel beyond the clear language and obvious intention of the rule making authority or stretch its scope by analogy. Other reason is that the use of word 'selected' in clause (g) is not without meaning. That is a Head Master of Junior High School unlike Principal or Head Master of High School has no right of being promoted. He has to face selection. That is why the selection process w