M MEERAN PILLAI Vs. G SASIDHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these appeals, the only question that arises for consideration is whether learned single Judge was justified in his view that 'teaching experience' prescribed under the Special Rules for Kerala Craftsmen training Service, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'rules') for appointment to the post of Principal Class II/vice Principal need not be in a 'supervisory post". Challenging the view of the Government that teaching experience should be in a supervisory post, four writ applications were filed which were allowed by a common judgment by learned singe Judge. Factual position, which is undisputed, needs to be noted in brief. The Special Rules were originally brought into force on 14-6-1966. There was an amendment in the year 1979 by the Special Rules for Kerala. Craftsmen Training Service Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as "the amendment Rules" ). The relevant provision of the rules before and after the amendment Rules relevant for the purpose of the case read as follows : Before the amendment ------------------------------------------------------------------------Category Method of appointment------------------------------------------------------------------------ xx xx 4. Principal Class II/vice 1. By transfer from among foreman, Principal. Foreman INstructors/group INstructors and Junior Apprent-iceship Advisers (Technical) in the Department. or 2. IN the absence of qualified candidates for transfer from among Foreman INstructors/group INstructors and Junior Apprenti- ceship advisors (Technical) by transfer from any other service. or 3. IN the absence of qualified candidates for transfer by direct recruitment.------------------------------------------------------------------------Category Qualifications ------------------------------------------------------------------------Principal, Class II/ 1. A degree in Mechanical Engineering Vice-Principal of a recognised University or Equivalent qualification. 2. Two years' experience subsequent to graduation in a supervisory capacity in workshops. 3. Organising and administrative experience in engineering and allied matters. Desirable :- Teaching experience in a recognised institute. 1. A diploma in Mechanical or Electrical Engineering awarded after a three year course of study from a recognised university or institution or eqivalent qualification. 2. Six Years' experience subsequent to obtaining the diploma in supervisory capacity in workshops 3. Organising and administrative experience in engineering and allied matters. Desirable :- Teaching experience in a recognised institute.------------------------------------------------------------------------ After the amendment ------------------------------------------------------------------------Category Method of appointment------------------------------------------------------------------------ xx xx 4. Principal, Class II/ 1. By transfer from among Foreman vice Principal. INstructors/group INstructors and Junior Apprenticeship advisers (Technical) in the Department. 2. xxxx or 3. IN the absence of qualified candidates for transfer by direct recruitment.------------------------------------------------------------------------Category Qualifications (1) (2)------------------------------------------------------------------------Principal, Class II/ Essential :-- 1. A degree in any Vice Principal. branch of engineering of a recognised University or equivalent qualifi- cation.

(2.) TWO years' experience subsequent to graduation in teaching/administrative capacity in a supervisory post or equivalent in an engineering Institution or Industry.------------------------------------------------------------------------ (1) (2) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. A diploma in any branch of Engineering awarded after a 3 years' course of study from a recognised University or Institution or equivalent qualification. 2. Seven years' experience subsequent to obtaining diploma in Teaching/ Administrative capacity in Superv- isory post or equivalent in an Engineering Institution or Industry. Preferential :- Organising and Administrative experience in an Engineering Industry or Institution.------------------------------------------------------------------------ Present appellants and the original petitioners in the writ applications were claimants for the post which fell vacant after 1979 amendment. In the case of graduates, as indicated above, two years experience subsequent to graduation in Teaching/administrative capacity in a supervisory post or equivalent in an Engineering Institution or Industry is necessary to claim promotion. For diploma holders, requisite period is seven years. Present appellants who were respondents in the Original Petitions submitted that teaching experience should also be in a supervisory post and those who do not have teaching experience in a supervisory post for the required number of years were not qualified for promotion. Learned single Judge observed that the stand of the petitioners in the Original Petitions was acceptable. Accordingly, it was held that the teaching experience prescribed as a qualification under the special Rules for appointment to the post of Principal Class II/vice-Principal need not be in a supervisory post. Stand of the appellants in the Writ Appeals is to the effect that a bare reading of the provision itself clearly shows that it was required that the teaching experience should be in a supervisory post. Learned counsel for the original petitioners, the respondents herein, contended that the view expressed by the learned single Judge is perfectly justified and is in line with the prescription and any other interpretation would be against the intention of the provisions. It is to be noted that the State Government has not challenged the order of learned single Judge. We find that the provisions can be read in a harmonious manner in the following way to cover two category of cases i. e. , (a) TWO years experience subsequent to graduation in Teaching in an Engineering Institution. (b) TWO years experience sub-sequent to graduation in administrative capacity in a supervisory post or equivalent in an industry. Though it is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that there is scope for teaching even in an industry, such an interpretation cannot be spelt out on a reading of the provision. Further it is to be noted that before the amendment, teaching experience was not a mandatory qualification, but only a desirable qualification. On the other hand, experience in a supervisory capacity was the mandatory qualification. The desirable qualification was shown as 'teaching experience in a recognised institute'. It was not a 'teaching experience in a supervisory post'. It is, therefore, clear that the qualification which was shown as desirable before the amendment was later brought in as a mandatory qualification under the amended rule. It has to be further noted that the stand of the State Government throws some light on the point. In the counter-affidavit filed in O. P. No. 12815/92 which was quoted by learned single Judge, it was stated as follows : "in Government letter No. 15838/c1/93/lbr. dt. 2-7-1984, it was stated that the "experience gained as Senior Instructor and Junior Instructor can also be counted for the purpose of appointment by transfer to the post of Principal Class II/vice-Principal". It may be stated that the work of Junior Instructor and Senior Instructor is one and the same, i. e. , teaching the trainees but it carries no supervisory function. Group instructor is the only supervisory teaching post in non-gazetted cadre. The matter was taken up by the Director of Training with Government pointing out the clarifications issued by the Government that it did not appear to be in consonance with the provision in the Special Rules and requested Government to reconsider the Instructions issued in the letter dated 2-7-1984. In reply, the government directed in their letter No. 6762/c1/86/lbr dated 1-6-1988 that the directions issued in the Government letter dated 2-7-1984 may be followed till amendment to special rules was issued. The above ruling has since been revised by Government as per Government letter No. 28219/c1/lbr dated 1-8-1991 that the experience should be in supervisory post. Government are taking steps to amend rules as the existing provision is not in accordance with the intention of the rule. But the Rule has not been amended so far. "in other words, stand of the State Government is clear that the existing provision is not in accordance with the intention of the Rule and, therefore, the amendment was felt necessary. It is fairly accepted that no such amendment has yet been brought into effect. If it is brought and when it is brought, the consequences have to be considered then and not at the present juncture. As the position stands now, views of learned single Judge suffer from no infirmity to warrant interference. Accordingly, these Writ Appeals are dismissed. Appeals dismissed. . .