JUDGMENT Janardan Sahai, J.
1. The dispute in this writ petition relates to the claim for appointment as ad hoc Principal of an Intermediate College between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. The petitioner is undisputedly senior to the 3rd respondent but the District Inspector of Schools has by the order dated 31.5.2002, which is impugned in this writ petition held that the petitioner is not eligible as he does not possess the necessary minimum qualifications provided for the post of Principal under Appendix-A of Chapter 2 of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. The District Inspector of Schools has directed that the 3rd respondent Onkar Datt Tiwari, who is a lecturer, is entitled to work as ad hoc Principal until a regularly selected candidate from the Board comes to Join. In paragraph 7 of the petition, the petitioner has described his qualification as a Graduate from the Gorakhpur University of the year 1960, B.Ed, of the year 1961 and M.Ed. from the Gorakhpur University. The essential qualification for the post of Principal set out in Appendix-A are quoted below :
"1. Head of the institution.--(1) Trained M.A. or M.Sc. or M.Com. or M.Sc. (Agriculture) or any equivalent post-graduate or any other degree which is awarded by corporate body specified in above mentioned para one and should have at least teaching experience of four years in classes 9 to 12 in any training institute or in any institution or university specified in above mentioned para one or in any degree college affiliated to such university or Institution, recognised by Board or any institution affiliated from Boards of other States or such other institutions whose examinations are recognised by the Board, or should the condition is also that he/she should not be below 30 years of age.
or (2) First or second class Post-Graduate Degree along with teaching experience of ten years in Intermediate Classes of any recognised institutions or third class Post-Graduate Degree with teaching experience of fifteen years.
or (3) Trained post-graduate diploma-holder in science. The condition is that he has passed this diploma course in first or second class and have efficiently worked for 15 of 20 years respectively after passing such diploma course."
2. The contention of Dr. R.G. Padia, learned counsel for the petitioner is that M.Ed. is a Post-Graduate Degree and the District Inspector of Schools erred in holding that M.Ed, was not sufficient qualification.
3. On the other hand, Shrt R.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the third respondent drew a distinction between a training or professional qualification on the one hand and an educational qualification on the other hand. He submitted that M.Ed. training is a professional qualification for teaching but is not an academic qualification. Support is drawn by him by reference to Serial No. 1 of Appendix-A, which provides the qualification for head of Institution as trained M.A. or M.Sc. or M.Com. or M.Sc. (Agriculture) or any equivalent Post-Graduate degree. It is submitted that M.Ed. is included as a training qualification in paragraph 2 of the Appendix-A, which defines the word 'trained' to mean Post-Graduate training qualification.
4. The question Involved in this case has been considered in Samar Bahadur Singh v. Deputy Director of Education and Ors., 1991 (1) AWC 355 : (1991) 1 UPLBEC 653. It was held there that M.Ed. is a Post-Graduate Degree. Paragraphs 17 and 18 of that decision are being quoted.
"17. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that since M.Ed. is included in the expression 'trained', therefore, it cannot be considered a post-graduate degree, does not appear to be correct. For appointment of Head of Institution a trained M.A. or M.Sc./or M.Com. or M.Sc. (Agriculture) is a requisite qualification but it makes those persons also eligible for appointment, who have not a Post-Graduate Degree. If M.Ed. is a Post-Graduate Degree as is held in this judgment, then the petitioner is entitled to be considered for the post of Principal. Merely because M.Ed. is explained in the expression 'trained', it does not denude postgraduate character to the M.Ed. qualification. By holding that M.Ed. is a Post-Graduate Degree, the expression trained used in the Appendix-A as amended on 9th December, 1976 or as used in unamended Appendix, does not become redundant or superfluous.
18. M.Ed. is considered by the University as a Post-Graduate Degree and the candidate on the basis of M.Ed. degree, is entitled to do his doctorate in some subjects. Therefore, it cannot be said that M.Ed. is not a Post-Graduate Degree. It is immaterial that M.Ed. course is of only one year's duration. Whether it is one year's or two years' duration, it is a Post-Graduate Degree and duration of one year will not exclude it from the array of postgraduate degrees."
5. While affirming the decision of the single Judge, the Division Bench in the special appeal S.K. Verma v. Samar Bahadur Singh Ors., 1992(1) AWC 558, 1991 (1) UPLBEC 574, held in Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 as follows :
"7. If the above quoted provisions were read in isolation we might have attempted to persuade ourselves to accept the contention of the appellant in preference to those of the respondent No. 1, but having read serial No. 1 in juxtaposition with serial No. 5 of the said Appendix, we find the contention of respondent No. 1 indefensible. The said serial reads as under :
"(5) Where a person has applied for the post of the Head of the Institution and holds master's degree on more than one subject, quality point marks will be awarded on the basis of the master's degree in that subject which has a better division as compared to other subject or subjects ;
Provided that if M.Ed. degree is in a better division as compared to other master's degree, the applicant shall not be entitled to any additional marks for M.Ed. under Sub-clause (3).
Provided further that where the applicant is only M.Ed. with no other master's degree quality point marks will be awarded for M.Ed. as a post-graduate degree."
8. A plain reading of the second proviso quoted above, ineluctably shows that only an M.Ed. degree has been considered as a qualifying degree for the post of Head of the Institution. The learned counsel for the appellant has, however, argued that serial No. 5, has been incorporated for awarding marks and it has nothing to do with qualification.
9. We are unable to accept the above contention having regard to the fact that a proviso qualifies the main provision and the entire Serial No. 5 relates to persons, who have applied for the post of Head of the Institution. To put it differently, under Serial No. 5 only Master's degree in Education has been treated as a degree for qualification with this rider (under the second proviso) that a person holding such degree would not get better quality point marks."
6. In view of the decision of the Division Bench in the case of S.K. Verma v. Samar Bahadur Singh and Ors., there was hardly any room left for the view that M.Ed. is not a Post-Graduate Degree. But Shri R.S. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submitted that the decision of the Division Bench stands impliedly overruled by the Apex Court in Dr. M.S. Mudhol and Anr. v. S.D. Halegkar and Ors., 1993 (3) SCC 591. The controversy there related to the appointment to the post of Principal of the Delhi Kannada Senior Secondary School. The rule providing for essential qualification required the candidate to have a Master's Degree with atleast 2nd Division from a recognised university or equivalent and a degree in teaching from a recognised university or equivalent apart from the requirement of experience which is not relevant for the purpose of this case. The Apex Court held that the contention "that M.Ed. (Sic M.A.) 2nd Division was equivalent to M.A. (Sic M.Ed.) 2nd Division" as fallacious. The Apex Court held that one was an academic qualification and other was a professional qualification. The Apex Court also noticed that M.A. course is spread over not less than two years while M.Ed. course is part-time spread over one year. It is submitted by Shri R.S. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent that the decision in Dr. M.S. Mudhol impliedly overrules the decision of this Court in Samar Bahadur Singh. The rule, which fell for interpretation in Dr. M.S. Mudhol, clearly stipulated that the candidate must possess master's decree as well as a degree in teaching. The Apex Court relied upon this twin requirement as a clinching ground in support of its conclusion in these words extracted from paragraph 4 :
"In any case, the statutory rule with regard to the essential qualifications is very clear Inasmuch as it requires both academic masters' degree and the teaching degree, the latter being not the substitute for the former. What is further, while laying down the qualifications with regard to the academic degree, viz., the masters' degree, the rule insists upon 2nd division for such degree. It does not insist upon a 2nd division degree in teaching. A pass degree is sufficient in its eyes. It would, therefore, amount to distorting the requisite qualifications under the rules, to attempt to substituting the teaching qualification for the academic qualification and exchanging the divisions of the two."
7. The difficulty in applying the decision in Dr. M.S. Mudhol to the rule laying down essential qualification in Appendix-A of the Regulation governing the appointment to the post of Principal in the present case has been noticed by the Division Bench in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of its judgment. The second proviso to serial No. 5 Appendix-D envisages a case where a candidate for the post of Principal possesses only M.Ed. with no other Master's degree and it lays down that in such a case, quality point marks will be awarded for M.Ed. as a Post-Graduate Degree. In case the contention of Sri R.S. Mishra is accepted, the second proviso of Serial No. 5 would be wholly redundant because if a candidate with M.Ed. qualification alone without any other master's degree is ineligible there was no purpose in awarding quality point marks for M.Ed. as a Post-Graduate Degree. The regulations have since been amended. Para 17 of the Appendix which relates to the same subject as serial No. 5 referred to by the Division Bench reads as :
"(17) Where any person has applied for the post of Head of the Institution and possesses postgraduate degree in more than one subjects then subjectwise marks will be given on the basis of the post-graduate degree of that subject in which division is better comparative to other subjects.
The condition is that if M.Ed. degree is better in comparison to other post-graduate degree then applicant shall not be entitled for any additional marks under Clause (3).
Next condition is that if the applicant is only M.Ed. and has no other post-graduate degree then he will be given additional marks for M.Ed. degree as postgraduate degree."
8. Paragraph 17 quoted above clearly envisages a case where the applicant for the post of Head of the Institution is only M.Ed. and has no other post-graduate degree and provides that he will be given additional marks for M.Ed. as a postgraduate degree. Although the regulations have been reframed, it is still provided that additional marks for M.Ed. degree as a post-graduate degree would be given to an applicant, who is having only M.Ed. and no other post-graduate degree. The contention that a provision such as serial No. 5 of the Appendix-D quoted by the Division Bench and para 17 quoted hereinabove does not relate to qualification but has been incorporated for awarding marks has been negatived by the Division Bench in Samar Bahadur Singh's case. As a different view from that taken by the Division Bench would result in making serial No. 5 quoted by the Division Bench and paragraph 17 quoted above as wholly redundant, such an interpretation but for compelling reasons ought not to be given to the statute. It may be noted that while serial No. 1 of the essential qualification in Appendix-A makes specific mention of M.A. or M.Sc. or M.Com. or M.Sc. (Agriculture) or any equivalent post-graduate or any other degree, serial No. 2 only provides for first or second class post-graduate degree and contains no reference to M.A., M.Sc., M.Com. or M.Sc. (Agri.). The language employed in serial No. 2 of Appendix-A is different from the language of the statute, which was interpreted by the Apex Court in Dr. M.S. Mudhol. The distinction between an academic qualification and a professional qualification was emphasised in view of the peculiar language of the rule, which provided for the twin requirements of Master's degree and degree in teaching.
9. In Dr. Ram Sevak Singh v. Dr. U.P. Singh and Ors., 1999 (2) AWC 1039 (SC) : 1999 SCC (L & S) 538, the rule laying down the qualification for the post of Principal provided :
(a) A consistently good academic record (that is to say, the overall record of all assessments throughout the academic career of a candidate) with first or high second class (that is to say, with an aggregate of more than 54 per cent marks) Master's degree or an equivalent degree of a foreign university in one of the subjects taught in the college or in a subject allied or interconnected therewith."
10. The High Court had proceeded to decide the matter on the basis that the M.Ed. degree is not an academic qualification as referred to in Statute 11.13A and Master's degree would not include M.Ed. degree which is a professional degree relying upon the decision in Dr. Prit Singh, 1992 (3) AWC 1797 (SC) : 1993 Supp (1) SCC 714. The Apex Court noticed the distinction between the requirement of qualification in the two cases. In Dr. Prit Singh, the required qualification was Master's degree and a degree in education as an additional qualification. Such was also the required qualification which fell for Interpretation in the case of Dr. M.S. Mudhol The Apex Court in paragraph 7 of its judgment held as under :
7. Therefore, the principal question that falls for consideration is whether M.Ed. degree possessed by the appellant was a qualification for the purpose of appointment as a Principal. In Dr. Prit Singh, the qualification required was a Master's degree in any subject and also a degree in education, whereas in the present case, the qualification required is Master's degree or an equivalent degree in one of the subjects taught in the college or in a subject allied or interconnected therewith. The distinction between the requirement of qualification in these two cases is obvious. In Dr. Prit Singh, the required qualification was a Master's degree and a degree in education as an additional qualification. In the present case, the college imparts education in teaching as well and, therefore, Master's degree in education is a degree in respect of a subject taught in the college, we cannot apply the ratio settled in Dr. Prit Singh irrespective of the qualifications required for a particular post. In the present case, a master's degree required can include a teaching subject and therefore, M.Ed. degree possessed by the appellant was held to be a sufficient qualification by the Commission. It cannot be said that the principles stated by this Court in Dr. Prit Singh can be applied in the present case because in Dr. Prit Singh the qualifications were a Master's degree and a degree in education whereas in the present case, a Master's degree in any subject taught in the college was the requisite qualification. We think the appellant satisfied the same. In regard to the other qualification of "consistently good academic record" which had been relaxed, this has not been seriously disputed."
11. From the aforesaid discussion, it appears that rule which fell for interpretation in the case of Dr. M.S. Mudhol was different from that in the present case and similar to that in Dr. Prit Singh and the Apex Court did not extend the principles laid down in Dr. Prit Singh to interpret the rule involved for consideration in Dr. Ram Sewak Singh. The regulation laying down the qualifications in the present case is different from that in Dr. M.S. Mudhol. For the reasons given above, it cannot said that the decision of this Court in Samar Bahadur Singh stands impliedly overruled. The result, therefore, is that M.Ed. qualification which the petitioner possesses is a Post-Graduate Degree and the petitioner could not be held to be ineligible treating the said qualification as not. being a Post-Graduate Degree.
12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 31.5.2002 impugned in this petition is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to work as ad hoc Principal and to be paid salary.