1986 (2) TMI 345 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the Headmaster of a school before it is taken over under Section 3(3) of the Act shall be deemed to be a teacher of that school for the purpose of examining his qualification and suitability because there is no specific mention of Headmaster of such school in Section 3(3)?
2. Whether even the Headmaster of the school taken over under Section 3(3) shall automatically become Headmaster of the school after its takeover in view of Section 4(2) without any scrutiny in respect of his qualification and suitability?

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the Headmaster of a school before it is taken over under Section 3(3) of the Act shall be deemed to be a teacher of that school for the purpose of examining his qualification and suitability because there is no specific mention of Headmaster of such school in Section 3(3)?

The core issue is whether the term "teachers" in Section 3(3) includes the Headmaster. The court noted that the Headmaster is also a teacher and falls within the broader definition of the term "teacher." The Headmaster is the head of the teaching staff, and thus, he is inherently a teacher. The definitions in Clauses (g), (h), and (i) of Section 2 of the Act support this interpretation. The Act's definition of "teacher" is broad, and the Headmaster, being the head of the teaching staff, is included within this term. The court emphasized that excluding the Headmaster from the scrutiny of qualifications and suitability would be unreasonable. Therefore, the Headmaster is deemed to be a teacher for the purposes of examining his qualification and suitability under Section 3(3).

2. Whether even the Headmaster of the school taken over under Section 3(3) shall automatically become Headmaster of the school after its takeover in view of Section 4(2) without any scrutiny in respect of his qualification and suitability?

The court held that the Headmaster does not automatically become the Headmaster of the school after its takeover. Section 3(3) requires a meticulous examination of the qualifications and suitability of teachers, including the Headmaster, by a committee constituted by the State Government. The process involves a thorough scrutiny of qualifications and suitability before any appointment to Government service. The court rejected the theory of automatic appointment and emphasized that such an interpretation would render the scrutiny process under Section 3(3) meaningless. The Headmaster's appointment to the nationalized school must be based on the committee's recommendation and the State Government's determination. Section 4(2) must be read harmoniously with Section 3(3), and it does not imply an automatic transfer of the Headmaster's service without scrutiny. The court also noted that the designation of employees taken over by the State Government is subject to the State Government's determination.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the Headmaster of an unrecognized secondary school before its takeover is deemed to be a teacher for the purposes of examining his qualification and suitability under Section 3(3) of the Act. Furthermore, the Headmaster does not automatically become the Headmaster of the school after its takeover under Section 4(2) without scrutiny of his qualification and suitability. The appointment must be based on a recommendation by the constituted committee and the State Government's determination. The court dismissed the writ petitions, emphasizing that the policy of appointing Headmasters through the School Service Board is in accordance with justice and the mandate of Article 16.