@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
G.P. Singh, Actg. C.J.
The Petitioner Maheshkumar Verma was employed as Principal, Higher Secondary School, Somni. The school was run by Janapada Sabha, Rajnaridgaon. The school, along with other Janapada Schools, was taken over by the State Government from 1st October 1969. The Government by order dated 21st December 1967 laid down the principles for absorption of the staff of these schools in Government service. The Petitioner, to begin with, was continued as Principal, but by order dated 2nd September 1972 (Annexure-B), the Divisional Superintendent of Education, absorbed the Petitioner as Upper Division Teacher. The Petitioner claims that he was qualified to be absorbed as Principal in accordance with the principles laid down in the order of the Government dated 21st December 1967. Consequently, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner prays that the Government be directed to absorb him as Principal.
The dispute between the parties is on the question whether the Petitioner had worked on the post of Principal for a minimum period of seven years as required by Clause 3(b) of the order dated 21st December 1967, This clause reads as follows:
3(b). For absorption on the post of Head Masters/Principal of a High-Higher Secondary School, the person concerned should possess the post graduate degree and should have worked on the post for a minimum period of 7 years in the same institution and should have 10 years teaching experience in any of the recognised institution of Madhya Pradesh.
The Petitioner worked as in-charge Principal of Higher Secondary School, Ghunka, from 12th September 1959 to 31st March 1961. The Petitioner also worked from 22nd November 1963 to 27th July 1965 as in-charge Principal of Higher Secondary School, Somni. The Petitioner was appointed as Principal on 28th July 1965 in Higher Secondary School, Somni, and was confirmed as principal on 28th July 1967. As earlier stated, the school was taken over on 1st October 1969. It will be seen that if the two periods during which the Petitioner worked as in-charge Principal in Ghunka and Somni Higher Secondary Schools are taken into account, it will have to be held that the Petitioner worked as Principal for a period of seven years before the school was taken over.
It was decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Satyendra Prasanna Singh Yadav v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. M.P. No. 368 of 1973, decided on 14th April 1976 that for the purpose of computing the period of seven years, the period during which a person was in-charge Principal must also be included. This legal position is now not in dispute. The first question that arises is whether the period of seven years must be a continuous period or it may consist of different periods in all totalling to seven years for qualifying a person to be absorbed as Principal. The language of Clause 3(b) which we have earlier quoted only inquires that the person concerned should have worked on the post of Principal for a minimum period of seven years in the same institution. It is not provided therein that the period of seven years should be a continuous period. In our opinion, the clause should be liberally construed and the period of seven years need not be a continuous period. If a person had worked as Principal for a period of seven years in all, the requirement of the clause would be satisfied, even though there were breaks and the period of seven years was not a continuous period.
The learned Government Advocate next argued that the Petitioner did not work "in the same institution" as Principal for a period of seven years and, therefore, he was not qualified to be absorbed as Principal. The Higher Secondary Schools, Ghunka and Somni, were both run by the Janapada Sabha, Rajnandgaon. The schools were similar but different. The position, therefore, is that the Petitioner worked for a period of seven years as Principal in similar but different Higher Secondary Schools of the same Janpada Sabha. When the Higher Secondary Schools were under the same Janapada Sabha, it was open to the Sabha to transfer the Petitioner from one school to another. The schools are of the same category. The Petitioner could not insist for continuance in one school and his transfer did not depend upon his volition. In these circumstances, we do not find any reasonable basis for differentiating the case of a person who served as Principal for seven years in one school of the Janapada Sabha from the case of a person who served as Principal for seven years in two similar schools of the same Janpada Sabha. It is in this background that we must construe the words "in the same institution" as they occur in Clause 3(b). The word "same" may mean "identical" or "similar" depending upon the context in which it is used. It is stated in Black''s Law Dictionary (p. 1507) that "the word ''same'' does not always mean ''identical'', not different or other. It frequently means of the kind or species, not the specific thing." In Great Western Railway Co. v. Sutton (1869) 4 HL 226, p. 260. It was observed by Lord Chelmsford that "the word ''same'' is constantly used in popular language for ''similar''," In our opinion, having regard to the context of Clause 3(b), the words "in the same institution" occurring therein should be construed to mean "in the same or similar institution". This construction has the merit of avoiding injustice to persons placed in the same class as the Petitioner, who had the misfortune of being transferred from one institution to another, without in any way affecting the object of prescribing the qualification that the person concerned should have worked as Principal for a minimum period of seven years. The Petitioner was thus qualified to be absorbed as Principal and the order of the Divisional Superintendent of Education, absorbing him as Upper Division Teacher, is apparently erroneous.
The petition is allowed. The order of the Divisional Superintendent of Education, Raipur, absorbing the Petitioner as Upper Division Teacher is set aside. The Respondents are directed to absorb the Petitioner as Principal with effect from 1st October 1969 on which date the school was taken over by the Government. Parties shall bear their own costs of this petition. The amount of security deposit shall be refunded to the Petitioner.
