Manoj Sohani vs Secretary State of M.P.

Prakash Shrivastava, J.—Heard finally with consent.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to accept the application form of the petitioner for selection to the post of Area Education Officer, in pursuance to the advertisement (Annexure P/8) and to permit the petitioner to participate in the selection process.

In brief, the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II vide order dated 20.7.1998 and he was regularized on the said post by order dated 13.2.2002. He was later on absorbed as Adhyapak on 5.10.2007 and promoted to the post of Varishtha Adhyapak on 22.11.2010. The petitioner''s application in pursuance to the advertisement (Annexure P/8) was not accepted on the ground that the petitioner did not have requisite 5 years experience on the post of Adhyapak.

When the matter is taken up today, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the controversy involved in the present matter has already been settled by the Division Bench of the Principal Seat in the matter of Gazetted Headmasters Pradeshik Sangh Madhya Pradesh Vs. State of M.P. in W.P. No. 14833/2013 by order dated 8.9.2014.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State has not disputed the above aspect of the matter.

The Division Bench in the matter of Gazetted Headmasters Pradeshik Sangh (supra) has held as under :-

"40. The literal meaning given to the Rules would mean that only ''Adhyapak'' of local body cadre is required to have 5 years experience whereas the requirement of teaching experience does not apply to the post of Upper Division Teacher and the Head Masters of Middle School. The literal construction in the instant case has to be avoided. If the interpretation to the teaching experience as prescribed in the Rules as mentioned in the advertisement and order dated 22.8.2013 and clarificatory memo dated 24.8.2013 is accepted, it would amount to promoting the anomaly as the person who is serving as Upper Division Teacher and may have 5 years teaching experience would be eligible to appear in the examination and whereas the person who is promoted from the cadre as Head Master and may not have 5 years'' teaching experience on the promoted post, even though he is senior to the person holding the post of Upper Division Teacher. Exclusion of such candidate from the participation in the process of recruitment cannot neither be countenanced nor would satisfy the test of reasonableness. No tangible reason for excluding such candidate and the object sought to be achieved by amending the Rule is forthcoming. It is also pertinent to mention here that the post of ''Adhyapak'' came into existence on account of merger of the post of ''Samvida Shala Shikshak'' Grade-II with the post of ''Adhyapak'' under the 2008 Rules. The nature of duties of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-II as well as Adhyapak are similar as both of them impart education in Middle Schools. However, if the teaching experience of such ''Adhyapak'' on the post of ''Samvida Shala Shikshak'' Grade-II is not taken into account, he would be excluded from the process of recruitment for the post of Area Education Officer. Similarly, Upper Division Teachers who may not have teaching experience of 5 years on the post of Upper Division Teacher and may have served years of teaching experience on the post of Assistant Teacher would be excluded. It is pertinent to mention here that in some of the writ petitions an averment has been made that though the petitioners are posted as Assistant Teachers, yet they are imparting education in Middle and High Schools. That averment of fact has not been controverted in the return filed by the State.

The advertisement dated 22.8.2014 as well as the order dated 16.9.2013 and clarificatory memo dated 24.8.2013 issued by the respondents, therefore, are not in consonance with the Rules, as the teaching experience prescribed in the rules is not relatable to any post. The post of Area Education Officer is an administrative post. The Area Education is, inter alia, required to monitor 40-50 primary and middle schools and academic monitoring of elementary education. The object of process of selection is to appoint most suitable candidates for the post of Area Education Officer and purposive interpretation is to be given to avoid the anomaly which had crept in by amendment in the rules in the year 2007 which the legislature intended to rectify by amendment in the Rules in the year 2013. More so when the amendment of the Rule was to depart from the ordinary rule of direct recruitment on such post. Therefore, the minimum qualification prescribed in the Rules, in our considered opinion, and in the background of aforesaid well settled legal principles with regard to statutory interpretation has to be read as over all teaching experience on any teaching post in the Government Schools.

In the result, the challenge to the validity of the Rules, as amended by notification dated 22.2.2013, is hereby repelled. However, the order dated 16.9.2013 issued by School Education Department and clarificatory memo issued by the Commissioner, Public Instructions, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal dated 24.8.2013 and the advertisement dated 22.8.2013 in so far it prescribes that Upper Division Teachers, Head Masters Middle School and ''Adhyapaks'', should have 5 years teaching experience on their "respective posts" for appointment on the post of Area Education Officer is hereby quashed. It is held that the Upper Division Teachers, Head Masters Middle Schools and ''Adhyapaks'' of local body cadre who have 5 years'' of over all teaching experience in Government Schools must be considered as eligible to appear in the examination.

We have been informed by learned Government Advocate that such persons have been permitted to appear in the examination. In view of the aforesaid statement made by learned Government Advocate it is directed that the results of such Upper Division Teachers, Head Masters Middle School and ''Adhyapaks'' who have appeared in the examination, which was held on 08.9.2013 for recruitment to the post of Area Education Officer be also declared. The interim order, if any, passed in the writ petitions are hereby vacated to enable the authorities to take the recruitment process forward in the terms of this pronouncement."

Keeping in view the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the present writ petition is allowed and it is held that the direction issued by the Division Bench will apply mutatis mutandis in the case of the present petitioner also. Since by the interim order the petitioner was permitted to participate in selection process provisionally, therefore, he would be entitled to benefit of direction issued in Para 43 Above.

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

C.C. as per rules.