GOLAKH CH. MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following question has been referred for our decision : 'Whether seven years' teaching experience as trained graduate is necessary to make an assistant teacher eligible for promotion Aappointment to the post of Headmaster of a High School ?'

(2.) BEING concerned with eligibility condition of an incumbent to hold the post of Headmaster of a High, School, who plays a very important role in the entire functioning of the school as the head of the institution, in which capacity he has to act as a friend, philosopher and guide, we. have to see that the conclusion we arrive at is goal -oriented. To put it differently, a purposive interpretation is called for. High Schools being the grass -root institutions to impart education to a vast majority of population, we cannot afford to come to such a conclusion as would frustrate the very purpose of establishing a school, which is to build up career of students to see that the aim of their live is achieved. Schools are established with a purpose behind it. They cannot be taken to be places of mere bricks and mortar,but as social engineering workshops to equip the nation with future citizens who can take up the responsibilities in future years to help its growth.

(3.) THE approach which we have decided to adopt is not new. Indeed, some of the decisions relied on by Shri Rath, learned counsel appearing for the intervenors, who are some of the Headmasters having been appointed without their having compleate 7 years' leaching experience as traine,d graduate, speak about the same. These decisions (cited by Shri Rath in a different context) are Dinakuchi Tea Estate v. Management, AIR 1958 SC 353; State of UP v. C. Tobit. AIR 1958 SC 414; Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 2386; New India Sugar Mills v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, AIR 1963 SC 1207; and Motor Owners Insurance Company v. Yadavjee Keshabjee, AIR 1981 SC 2059. On our own, we would refer to Vatticherukuru Village Panchayat v. Nori V. DeekShithulu, 1991 Supp. (2)SC 228, in which it was stated in paragraph 19 that in order to find the meaning of a particular provision in social legislation, the Court would adopt the purposive approach to ascertain the social ends envisaged in the Act, to consider the scheme of the Act as an integrated whole and the practical means by which it was sought to be effectuated to achieve them. Meticulous lexicographic analysis of words and phrases and sentences should be subordinate to this purposive approach. Not only this the dynamics of the interpretative functioning of the Court is to reflect the contemporary needs and the prevailing values consistent with the constitutional and legislative declaration of the policy envisaged in the statute under consideration.