High Court
Case Details
MC 551/2013 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. GOSWAMI (Goel, CJ) These three applications have been filed for modification of order dated 6.2.2013 passed in WP(C) No. 4433/2012 which is as follows:- (cid:28)This petition raises the issue of irrationality in prescribing qualification fo r the post of Assistant Inspector of Schools under the provisions of the Assam E ducation Services Rules, 1982. It is submitted that the cadre of Assistant Inspe ctor of Schools is the feeder cadre post for promotion to the post of Inspector of Schools. Posts of Inspector of Schools can be filled up partly by promotion a nd partly directly. For direct recruitment to the post of Inspector of Schools, there was no requirement of B.T. Degree, while for appointment as Assistant Insp ector of Schools, such requirement has been laid down. Persons could be directly appointed as Inspector of Schools without a B.T. Degree. There is no justificat ion for laying down higher qualification for the post of Assistant Inspector of Schools.
Legal Reasoning
The issue was earlier raised and finding prima facie merit in the submis sion, order dated 31.08.2012 was passed directing reconsideration of the matter by the State, in the light of the opinion of experts in the field. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State stating that two reti red Directors of Secondary Education were consulted who supported the Rules on t he ground that Inspector of Schools was the Head of the District Office, while A ssistant Inspector of Schools was to work for the academic upliftment of the sch ools. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opinion relied upon does not consider the issue that qualification for lower post is not the qualifi cation for higher post by way of direct recruitment. It is difficult to understa nd how such qualification was relevant for the feeder cadre. The qualification h as not been laid down based on any expert study. Distinction in job of Assistant Inspector and Inspector is not shown to be qualitative different. Thus, the St ate has reiterated the Rules without application of mind. Since the above submission could not be rebutted, we are of the view tha t the matter will require fresh consideration at appropriate level.
Decision
Accordingly, we direct that a fresh decision be taken in the matter in a ccordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till the above exercise is carried out, fresh appointments may not be fi nalized. (cid:29) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the applicants point out that the issue considered i n the above order relates to perceived irrationality in prescribing qualificatio n for the post of Assistant Inspector of Schools under the provisions of Assam E ducation Service Rules, 1982. Contention raised against the said prescription is that the post of Assistant Inspector of Schools is the feeder post for promotio n to the post of Inspector of Schools and, therefore, qualification for the lowe r post could not be higher than that for higher post. Under the Rules, for direc t recruitment to the post of Inspector there is no requirement of B.T. degree wh ereas for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Inspector such requirement has been prescribed in addition to other qualifications prescribed for the post of Inspector. Considering the above submission, direction was issued that a fresh deci sion be taken by the State in the matter. Learned counsel for the State submits that even on re-examination, the S tate stands by the Rule. Qualification for Inspector cannot be treated as lesser than the qualification for Assistant Inspector merely because for Assistant Ins pector B.T. degree was required. Such qualification stands prescribed even for S ub Inspector of Schools which is the feeder cadre for Assistant Inspector. The n ature of work of Assistant Inspector is different. For the post of Inspector the qualification prescribed includes brilliant academic career, which was not the requirement for Assistant Inspector. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that irrespective of the deci sion on the issue whether prescribing B.T. degree for recruitment to the post of Assistant Inspector, which is not the qualification for higher post of Inspecto r renders the prescribed qualification irrational, it was necessary to clarify t hat the interim restraint against finalization of appointment did not apply to t he posts of Inspectors. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners submits that there is challeng e to the qualification for the post of Inspector also as the post of Inspector s hould have higher qualification than the post of Assistant Inspector and in case B.T. degree is required for the post of Assistant Inspector, the said degree s hould be prescribed for the post of Inspector also and, therefore, injunction sh ould operate against appointment of Inspectors also. On due consideration, we are of the view that while keeping the issue of irrationality in qualification for the post of Assistant Inspector open, it nee ds to be clarified that the order dated 6.2.2013 does not in any manner prohibit appointments to the post of Inspector. As already observed in the order dated 31.8.2012 passed in WP(C) 3924/2012 (Raje sh Chakroborty -vs- State of Assam & Ors.), laying down of qualification is the prerogative of appointing authority though the same has to be on some rationale based on application of mind. Learned counsel for the applicants has also relie d upon the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to this effect in V.K. Sood -vs- Secretary, Civil Aviation & Ors., 1993 Supp (3) SCC 9 and in Mangej Singh & Ors. -vs- Union of India & Ors., (1998) 9 SCC 471. It has not been shown that qualification for the post of Inspector is irrational so as to call for interfer ence of this Court. If the petitioners claim is for prescription of higher quali fication for the posts of Inspectors, such claim has to be put forward before th e appointing authority. Accordingly, we allow these applications and clarify that order dated 6.2.2013 d oes not in any manner interfere with the appointment of Inspectors. Miscellaneous cases are disposed of.