Case: State Of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmishankar Mishra And Ors. Etc

period of 7 years in the same institution" would, in the context of the rule and the consequences flowing from it, mean only a substantive post on which the Head Master/Principal was confirmed and the confirmed holder of the substantive post for a period of 7 years would be entitled to absorption as envisaged by rule 3 (b). On a pure grammatical construction of the expression it would indisputably appear that the person claiming to be absorbed must have worked on the post of Head Master/Principal of a High/Higher Secondary School for a minimum period of 7 years. Emphasis is on the experience gained by working on the post of Head Master/Principal. A person incharge of the post also works and discharges the duties and functions of the post of which he has taken charge. Even an officiating incumbent of the post does discharge the functions and duties of the post. While examining the relative positions of confirmed Deputy Engineers and Officiating Deputy Engineers in S. B. Patwardhan &Ors. etc. v. State of Maharashtra &Ors., (2) this Court observed that the officiating Deputy Engineers discharge identical functions, bear similar responsibilities and acquire an equal amount of experience in the respective assignments. Viewed from this angle, the confirmed holder of a substantive post would be discharging the functions attached to the post and when some one is placed in that very post in an officiating capacity or directed to hold charge of the post, he would be required to perform the duties and discharge the functions of t he post rendering identical service. If the rule expressly did not make any differentiation between the persons working as a confirmed holder of substantive post and an incharge or officiating holder of the post, is there anything in the expression itself which by necessary implication excludes service in any other capacity except as a confirmed Head Master/Principal in a substantive post ? confirmed holder of a substantive post may look tautologous because one can only be confirmed in the substantive post.Now, every High School or Higher Secondary School must of necessity have the post of Head Master/Principal and it was nowhere suggested that there would not be a post of Head Master/Principal. If that would mean that there w as always a substantive post of Head Master/Principal it may be that the confirmed holder of the post may be away and not in a position to discharge the duties and some one may be appointed in an officiating capacity or may be directed to hold charge but none-the-less such holder of the post will have to perform duties and discharge functions attached to the post. 8. Further, the emphasis in the expression is on working on the post meaning thereby performing the duties and discharging the functions assigned to the post and not the capacity in which the post is held. Confirmation in a post being one of the glorious uncertainties of service as observed by this Court in S. B. Patwardhans case, (supra) it is rational to believe that the framers of the rule did not want to attach any importance to the capacity in which the post is held but the emphasis was on working on the post meaning thereby discharging the duties and performing the functions assigned to the post. 9. Our attention was drawn to State of Assam &Ors. v. Shri Kanak Chandra Dutta(1). We fail to see how this decision can assist in deciding the question one way or the other. The question that came for consideration of this Court was: whether the holder of a post designated as Moujadar in the Assam valley was holding a civil post in the context of Article 311 of the Constitution ? After examining the duties and functions attached to the post of Moujadar, this Court held t hat a post can exist apart from the holder of the post and that Moujadar is the holder of a civil post under the State and that it makes no difference that he is remunerated by way of a commission on the collection of Government dues and does not draw a salary. In fact, if at all this decision helps, it would fortify the view which we are taking that the post is independent of the holder thereof and the requirement of the rule is that the person claiming to be absorbed must have worked i n the post of Head Master/Principal.erhaps there would have been some merit in the submission on behalf of the petitioner if in rule 3(b) the words used were "who held the post" but the language in rule 3(b) is so materially different and it speaks that a person should have worked on the post. The State was apparently wrong in introducing the element of rank for the purpose of rule 3(b). The controversy that surfaced in Ramrattan v. State of Madhya Pradesh &Ors., (1) and the subsequent decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Gokul Prasad, (2) which led to a reference to a Full Bench in Girja Shankar v. S.D.O., Harda &Ors., (3) on account of the use of the expressions such as "person appointed to be incharge of the current duties of the office" which indicated that such person did not hold the rank and, therefore, could not discharge statutory functions assigned to the post should not detain us. The language here indicates emphasis on work being done while on the post irrespective of the capacity. The absorption of a person as Principal under rule 3(b) does not depend on rank but on the nature of functions and duties that an incumbent discharges for a particular number of years, i.e. the duties of a Principal for a period of 7 years. 10. It thus clearly transpires that while computing the period of 7 years for the purpose of rule 3(b) what is determinative is performing duties and discharging functions of the post of Head Master/Principal irrespective of the capacity in which the post was held.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]In fact, if at all this decision helps, it would fortify the view which we are taking that the post is independent of the holder thereof and the requirement of the rule is that the person claiming to be absorbed must have worked i n the post of Head Master/Principal.erhaps there would have been some merit in the submission on behalf of the petitioner if in rule 3(b) the words used were "who held the post" but the language in rule 3(b) is so materially different and it speaks that a person should have worked on the post. The State was apparently wrong in introducing the element of rank for the purpose of rule 3(b). The controversy that surfaced in Ramrattan v. State of Madhya Pradesh &Ors., (1) and the subsequent decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Gokul Prasad, (2) which led to a reference to a Full Bench in Girja Shankar v. S.D.O., Harda &Ors., (3) on account of the use of the expressions such as "person appointed to be incharge of the current duties of the office" which indicated that such person did not hold the rank and, therefore, could not discharge statutory functions assigned to the post should not detain us. The language here indicates emphasis on work being done while on the post irrespective of the capacity. The absorption of a person as Principal under rule 3(b) does not depend on rank but on the nature of functions and duties that an incumbent discharges for a particular number of years, i.e. the duties of a Principal for a period of 7 yearsIt thus clearly transpires that while computing the period of 7 years for the purpose of rule 3(b) what is determinative is performing duties and discharging functions of the post of Head Master/Principal irrespective of the capacity in which the post was held.