B. LAKSHMIPATHI NAIDU Vs. DISTT. EDUCATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. Special leave is granted.

(2.) THE appellant is a school teacher claiming appointment as Head Master. He has been working as a Telugu Pandit since 1975 in the school concerned. He got the degrees of Master of Arts in Telugu in 1978 and Bachelor of Education in 1983. The post of Head Master fell vacant on 1.11.1986. According to the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge of the Madras High Court, he has been held to be ineligible for the post. The decision was confirmed on appeal by a short order by a Division Bench which is under challenge in the present appeal.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant has contended that in view of several other provisions in the Rules as also Instructions issued by the State, the experience of a Language Pandit has to be equated with that of a trained graduate and on this basis, at least two judgments were delivered by the Madras High Court in P. Subbannan v. The Director of School Education and another: Writ Petition No. 4470 of 1982 dated 21.2.1983, and in P.S. Chandrasekhar v. The Director of School Education, Madras -6 and others: Writ Petition No. 7367 of 1983 dated 18.10.1985. We have examined the judgment in P. Subbannan 's case the High Court had to deal with the claim of Tamil Pandit and in Chandrasekhar's case that of a Hindi Pandit, but since the same considerations arise in regard to any language Pandit the decisions are certainly in favour of the appellant. A writ appeal was filed against the judgment in P. Subbannan's case, which along with another writ appeal was withdrawn by the State as is evident by the order of the Division Bench in writ appeals Nos. 950 and 951 of 1983 vide annexure -J. The learned counsel is, therefore, right in contending that the two judgments interpreting the rule in favour of Language Pandits prevailed in the State for a considerably long period. It should further be presumed that the said principle has become settled and must have been applied in the other schools of the State. In view of this consideration, we hold that the High Court, in the present case, should not have departed from the settled position and should have followed the two decisions mentioned above.