Case: Smt. Juthika Bhattacharya  Vs.  The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.

be understood in a mandatory sense, so that no person who does not hold a post-graduate degree and possess the requisite experience would be eligible for being appointed as the Principal of a higher secondary school.As regards the second limb of the argument that since the appellant holds the qualification of B.A.B.T., she ought to be considered as holding a post-graduate degree, regard must again be had to the context in which the particular expression occurs and the purpose of the prescription. It is not inconceivable that the expression post-graduate degree may in a broad and general sense mean in a given context any degree obtained after graduation and which a graduate alone can obtain. But that is not the sense in which the Memorandum uses the particular expression. By post-graduate degree is meant a Masters degree like the M.A. or M.Sc. and not a Bachelors degree like the B.T. In other words, the expression connotes the successful completion of a course of studies at a higher level in any speciality, after the acquisition of a basic qualification at the graduate level. The B.T. course of studies, we are informed, is open only to graduates and in dictionary manner of speaking, the degree of Bachelor of Teaching may be said to be a post-graduate degree in the sense that the degree is obtainable only after graduation. That is the sense in which the word post is used in expressions like post-nuptial, post-prandial, post-operative, post-mortem and so forth. In these expressions, post means simply after, the emphasis being on the happening of an event after a certain point of time, But the express ion postgraduate degree has acquired in the educational world a special significance, a technical content. A Bachelors degree like the B.T., or the LL.B is not considered to be a post-graduate degree even though those degrees can be taken only after graduation. In the refined and elegant world of education, it is the holder of a Masters degree like the M.Ed. or the LL.M. who earns , recognition as the holder of a post-graduate degree. That is the sense in which the expression is used in the Memorandum. Mr. Sen says that in some foreign universities even a Bachelors degree, obtainable only after graduation, is considered as a post-graduate qualification. We are concerned with the interpretation of an indigenous instrument and must have regard for local parlance and understanding. Such awareness and understanding compel the construction fo r which we have indicated our preference. Indeed, everyone concerned understood the rule in the same sense as is evident from the permission sought by the appellant herself to appear for the M.A. examination. She asked for that permission in order to qualify for the Principals post.The appellant made a serious grievance that she was discriminated against in comparison with several others who have been appointed as principals in higher secondary schools run by the Government. On the record is a statement (Annexure P-VIII) which does show that in schools which were from their inception run by the Government, several teachers were appointed as Principals though they did not hold the Masters degree. Mr. Panjwani appearing on behalf of the state Government has given a valid explanation for this differentiation. Speaking generally, in schools which were always under Government control, a teacher could aspire to become a Principal only after a long period of service. Most of the 19 teachers whose names appear in Annexure P-VIII had served for about 20 years before being appointed as principals. On the other hand, private schools like the one in which the appellant was working as a Head Mistress or a principal did not follow any such convention and appointments to the post of the head of the school were made therein directly and straightway without insistence on any worth while experience of teaching. The appellant herself was appointed to the post of a Head Mistress directly in the year 1958. The state Government had therefore a valid reason for prescribing comparatively stringent qualifications for the post of Principal in schools taken over by it from private institutions. It may be added that in its own schools, the Government appointed persons holding merely the qualification of B.A.B.T., to the post of Principal by reason of the long and valuable experience gained by them as teachers and not on the supposition that they held a post-graduate degree. Reliance was placed by the appellants counsel on Regulations of the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, in support of his submission that the qualifications of the teaching staff in any institution have to be the same as prescribed for the corresponding staff in Government institutions. But these Regulations have no relevance in the present case. They were framed under section 28(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyamik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1965. Regulation 61 and the allied regulations on which reliance is placed show that they were framed in order to prescribe conditions with which an educational institution had to comply before seeking recognition of the Board of Secondary Education. The various conditions prescribed by the Regulations do not constitute conditions of service and can create no rights and obligations, contractual or statutory, as between a school and its employees whether the school is a Government institution non-Government institution.Before concluding we would like to say that the State Government ought to consider the request which was made by the appellant long since for permission to appear for the final M.A. Examination. She has already passed Part I of that examination with Political Science as her subject but she was refused permission to complete the course on the ground that she had not yet completed one years service under the State Government. That objection can no longer hold good. We are confident that the proceedings taken by the appellant for vindicating her rights will not be allowed to stand in her way if and when she is found fit and qualified for further promotion in accordance with the relevant rules. 5.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]On the other hand, private schools like the one in which the appellant was working as a Head Mistress or a principal did not follow any such convention and appointments to the post of the head of the school were made therein directly and straightway without insistence on any worth while experience of teaching. The appellant herself was appointed to the post of a Head Mistress directly in the year 1958. The state Government had therefore a valid reason for prescribing comparatively stringent qualifications for the post of Principal in schools taken over by it from private institutions. It may be added that in its own schools, the Government appointed persons holding merely the qualification of B.A.B.T., to the post of Principal by reason of the long and valuable experience gained by them as teachers and not on the supposition that they held a post-graduate degree. Reliance was placed by the appellants counsel on Regulations of the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, in support of his submission that the qualifications of the teaching staff in any institution have to be the same as prescribed for the corresponding staff in Government institutions. But these Regulations have no relevance in the present case. They were framed under section 28(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyamik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1965. Regulation 61 and the allied regulations on which reliance is placed show that they were framed in order to prescribe conditions with which an educational institution had to comply before seeking recognition of the Board of Secondary Education. The various conditions prescribed by the Regulations do not constitute conditions of service and can create no rights and obligations, contractual or statutory, as between a school and its employees whether the school is a Government institution non-Government institution.Before concluding we would like to say that the State Government ought to consider the request which was made by the appellant long since for permission to appear for the final M.A. Examination. She has already passed Part I of that examination with Political Science as her subject but she was refused permission to complete the course on the ground that she had not yet completed one years service under the State Government. That objection can no longer hold good. We are confident that the proceedings taken by the appellant for vindicating her rights will not be allowed to stand in her way if and when she is found fit and qualified for further promotion in accordance with the relevant rules.