PABITRA MOHAN DASS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - These two appeals are directed against a Special Bench judgment of the Orissa High Court dated 25th January, 1999. By the said judgment some of the directions contained in the earlier Full Bench decisions have been set aside. The appellants, who were Headmasters of different Private Schools, and those schools became later on Aided Educational Institutions, and finally became full-fledged Government schools, are aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the Orissa High Court as in implementation of the said judgment they cannot be continued as Headmasters.

(2.) Prior to the enactment of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "The Act"), the educational activities in the State of Orissa were being regulated through a collection of executive instructions issued by the Government from time to time and those instructions had been embodied in a Code, called 'Education Code'. The provisions of the Code had no statutory support and, as such, the Government was not able to exercise effective control over the management of the Non-Government Educational Institutions. The management of such institutions were playing hire and fire with the services of the teachers of the institution. The Orissa Legislature felt that such employees of the Non-Government Educational Institutions should be protected from the exploitation by the management, and Government also should have some control over those Non-Government Institutions so that conditions of the institutions would not deteriorate. It is with this object the Orissa Education Act was enacted in the year 1969 and since then has been amended from time to time to suit the needs of the hour and by now the Act of 1969 has been amended 9 times. Section 3(m) defines the word 'prescribed' to mean prescribed by rules. Section 6 provides the procedure for recognition of the Educational Institutions. Sub-section (12) of Section 6 stipulates that no Educational Institution shall be eligible for affiliation or recognition by the Board of Secondary Education constituted under the Orissa Secondary Education Act, 1952 or the Council of Higher Secondary Education constituted under the Orissa Council of Higher Secondary Education Act, 1992 unless it has received recognition under the Act and continued to be so recognised. Section 10 provides the conditions of service of the staff of aided institutions. Section 10-C provides for constitution of a common cadre in relation to all or any class of employees of all or any category of aided Educational Institutions as may be specified in the order. Much prior to the enactment of the Act in 1969 the Orissa Legislature had enacted the Act in the year 1952 (Orissa Act 10 of 1953) called Orissa Secondary Education Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Secondary Education Act'). The Act intended to establish a Board to regulate, control and develop secondary education in the State of Orissa. The expression 'prescribed' has been defined in Section 2(i) of the aforesaid Act to mean prescribed by regulations made by the Board under the Act. Section 3 of the aforesaid Secondary Education Act cast duty on the State Government to constitute a Board called the Board of Secondary Education to regulate, control and develop Secondary Education in the State of Orissa. The Board is a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal. Section 2(k) defines recognition to mean recognition for the admission to the privileges of the Board including its examination. Section 2(i) defines Regulation to mean Regulation made or deemed to have been made by the Board under the Act. Section 21 is the power of the Board to make Regulation for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act. Chapter IX of the Regulations deals with certain pre-conditions in respect of the educational institutions. Regulation 1 of Chapter IX provides that no school which is not (recognised by the Board shall be permitted to present candidates for any examination conducted by the Board. Regulation 17 deals with the conditions to be fulfilled before permission is granted to open certain classes and for a school with class IX and above it must have a Headmaster who has to be a trained graduate in arts or science with minimum 7 years' experience after training. It is this condition prescribed under the Regulation for being appointed as Headmaster of an aided educational institution which is the subject-matter of controversy in the impugned case and was the subject-matter of controversy in the cases where earlier Full Bench of the High Court had taken some decisions which stood reversed by impugned judgment of the Special Bench of Orissa High Court. In exercise of power under Section 27 of the Act a set of Rules have been framed, called, the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Principals and Staff of Aided Educational Institution) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Recruitment Rules'). Rule 6 provides procedure for selection of candidates on determining their merit and suitability in the manner as determined in Regulation of Selection Board. Rule 7 provides condition of eligibility of candidates. Rule 7(c) further stipulates that the age or qualification for appointment as a teacher and for other posts would be the same as for similar or corresponding post in educational institution established or maintained by the Government. Rule 8 carves out certain exceptions to the selection by the Board as provided in Rule 6. Rule 8(3) is the procedure for filling up the post of Headmaster and Headmistress of schools. Regulation 17 of Chapter IX of the Boards' Regulation as well as Rule 8(3) of the Regulation Rules are extracted hereinbelow in extenso:-

(3.) Prior to the enactment of Orissa Education Act, under the so called Administrative Instructions called the Orissa Education Code the Staffing pattern of High School provided that the school shall have 4 posts of trained graduate teachers including the headmaster apart from other teachers and clerical staff. Thus any trained graduate teacher could be appointed as Headmaster under the set of Administrative Instructions. Until 29-4-1977 when the Regulations framed under the Secondary Education Act, 1952, was amended the prescribed qualification for the post of Headmaster of a school was merely a trained graduate. By virtue of the amended Regulation, the said prescribed qualification for the post of headmaster of a school became a trained graduate in arts or science with minimum 7 years experience after training. It is to be noticed that schools whether private or aided or Government will have to get recognition from the Board of Secondary Education without which it would not be permissible for the institution to present its candidates at the annual High School Certificate examination and necessarily, therefore, the institution will be entitled to get recognition only if it has the required number of staff with the prescribed qualification and consequently a Headmaster will have to be a trained graduate in arts or science with 7 years teaching experience after becoming such trained graduate. Though the regulation framed under the Board of Secondary Education Act prescribed the qualification for the post of a Headmaster neither the Education Act nor the Recruitment Rules of 1974 framed in exercise of powers under the Act of 1969 deal with or prescribe the qualification for the appointment of the Headmaster of a High School. Rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules, however, provides exception to the selection by the Board and Rule 8(3) of the said Rules provides the procedure for filling up of the vacancies in the post of Headmaster and the aforesaid Rule 8(3) came on 3-6-1988. As has been stated earlier, under the Orissa Education Code the prescribed qualification for the post of Headmaster of a school was merely a trained graduate whereas with effect from 29-4-1977 the prescribed qualification for the post of Headmaster under the Regulations framed under the Board of Secondary Education Act became a trained science graduate with 7 years of teaching experience after becoming a trained graduate. Since the provisions of the Regulation, Act and the Rules are complimentary to each other, it must necessarily be held that no school can have a Headmaster after 29-4-1977 who does not possess the qualification of 7 years of teaching experience as a trained gradudate teacher. The schools usually start in villages on private donations and continue for some period on the tuition fee received from the students and the donation of the local public. After continuing for some period the State Government grants financial assistance, called Grant-in-aid and on receipt of such grant schools became aided educational institutions, as defined in the Act as well as the Recruitment Rules of 1974. Though the conditions of service of an aided educational institution is governed by the provisions of Recruitment Rules of 1974 which Rule confers adequate control with the Educational Authorities even in the matter of appointment of teachers in the institutions but the same having no application to the private schools, the Managing Committee of the private schools who continue to be the employer and were appointing teachers including the Headmaster on their own. Though such private schools are also required to get recognition from the State Government without which they would not be eligible for affiliation or recognition by the Board of Secondary Education constituted under the Orissa Secondary Education Act, 1952, yet at the time of recruitment of the personnel the Educational Authorities were not having any control over the process of recruitment and in the process many private schools which later on became aided educational institutions and finally landed up as Government schools continued to have Headmasters even subsequent to 29-4-1977 when Regulation 17 was inserted by amendment without 7 years of teaching experience after being a trained graduate. Right of such people to continue as Headmaster came to be considered in the First Full Bench Judgment in the case Golakh Chandra Mohanty v. State of Orissa, (1993 Lab IC 903). After elaborate discussion of the different provisions of the Act, Regulation and the Rules the said Full Bench in its judgment recorded five conclusions which have been quoted in paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment of the Special Bench. A Batch of Writ Petitions subsequent to the aforesaid Full Bench decision in Golakh Chandra Mohanty's case (supra) when were listed before a Division Bench the Division Bench felt that by applying the ratio of the Full Bench decision in Golakh Chandra Mohanty's case (1993 Lab IC 903) (supra) great harassment would be caused to all those teachers who had been appointed as Headmasters of different un-aided schools when there was no such embargo or requirement of 7 years of teaching experience as trained graduate teacher was there and consequently, Golakh Chandra Mohanty's case (supra) may be reconsidered. These batch of cases were heard by the subsequent Full Bench and the subsequent Full Bench also came to the conclusion that the decision in Golakh Chandra Mohanty's case (1993 Lab IC 903) (supra) does not need reconsideration, as has been noticed in paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment of the Special Bench. After answering the reference, the cases were listed before the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court and the learned Judge of the Division Bench felt, because of conflicting views of the earlier Division Benches of the said Court on the question whether the Inspectors order or approval of an incumbent of headmaster-incharge of the school is protected under conclusion No. 2 recorded by the Full Bench in the case of Golakh Chandra Mohanty (1993 Lab IC 903) (supra), and accordingly referred the cases again to a larger Bench. When the cases were listed before the Full Bench, the Full Bench felt that though a single question has been referred to but yet there remain some grey areas in the earlier two decisions of the Full Bench and, therefore, Special Bench of Five Learned Judges was constituted to examine the entire controversy afresh. After a thorough consideration of the matter Special Bench recorded its conclusion in paragraph 19 which are quoted hereunder :-