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

Mr. Gambhir, learned counsel for the petitioner informed us that a number of petitions are pending in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in which the question raised in the present group of petitions is involved and as we are not inclined to grant leave, we would rather indicate our reasons by a speaking orderAt the commencement of the British Raj both in the Raj ruled area of India and the princely States institutions of higher education were set up and manned under Government aegis. As the demand for institutions of higher education increased with the proliferation of State activity and need of white collar employees, these institutions speedily multiplied and they were generally set up and manned by educational societies or local authoritiesThe turmoil since independence and especially in the last one and a half decade in the world of academicians led to the reversal of the policy of Government directly setting up educational institutions and in fact whatever they had set up, being slowly handed over to educational societies and/or local authorities, and it has turned a full circle. The grievance of the teachers in such school manifested in the demand for taking over of such institutions by the State and all over the country the transition has begunIn Madhya Pradesh the State regulated the functioning and standards of academic instruction in Higher Secondary Schools under Madhya Pradesh Madhyamik Shiksha Adhiniyem, 196 5. This supervisory role of the State hardly improved the situation with the result that tensions increased and the demand became louder that these institutions should be taken over by the Government for its direct management and the teachers should be accorded the status of Government servants.The State Government responded to this demand by enacting the Madhya Pradesh Local Authorities School Teachers (Absorption in Government Service) Act, 1963 (the Act for short). The Act provided for absorbing teachers serving in Middle Schools and Primary Schools managed by local authorities in Government serviceThe relevant rule for absorption is rule 3 of the Rules enacted under the Act. In these petitions we are concerned with rule 3(b) which reads as under:"3 (b). For absorption on the post of Head Master/Principal of a High/Higher Secondary School, the person concerned should possess the post graduate degree and should have worked on the post for a minimum period of 7 years in the same institution and should have 10 years teaching experience in any recognised institution of Madhya Pradesh"While implementing the aforementioned rule there arose a cleavage on the interpretation of the rule, the concerned teacher contending that what is relevant is that working on the post for a minimum period of 7 years would for the purpose of computation of 7 years include service even as incharge He ad Master/Principal or officiating service in the post whereas the State contended that the teacher claiming to be absorbed as Head Master/Principal should have worked as a confirmed Head Master/Principal in a substantive post for the full period of 7 years. The State in accordance with its interpretation declined absorption to a number of Head Masters/Principals which led to the filing of a number of writ petitions in the Madhya Pradesh High CourtIt appears that this question was first examined by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Satyendra Prasanna Singh Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh &3 Ors.(1), in which the High Court took the view that the period during which a Head Master/Principal worked as incharge Principal ought to be taken into account for computing the period of 7 years. Following this decision the present group of petitions were allowed by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and an application for leave to appeal to this Court under Article 133 of the Constitution was rejected. Hence the State of Madhya Pradesh has filed this group of petitions for special leave to appeal.

Court's reasoning:
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.