ORDER
Khan, (J.)
1. These two Appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 18.2.99 passed in CWP 5141/94 filed by respondents 1 and 2 and being identical on facts and in law are being disposed of by this common order. While first Appeal is filed by Navyug School Education Society and NDMC, the second is by the affected party whose appointment to the post of Vice Principal and Principal of Navyug School at Peshwa Road stands quashed by impugned judgment.
2. It transpires that this School was a primary school first and was upgraded to secondary level and then to Senior Secondary level necessitating creation of post of Vice Principal and Principal. Appellant in LPA No.100/99 was its headmistress first and was subsequently appointed to post of Vice Principal and Principal triggering this litigation. The School admittedly belongs to NDMC and is run by it and a lot of confusion surrounds the set of Rules regulating service conditions of teachers working in it. Though it is claimed that NDMC had its own Rules on the subject and that Delhi Administration Rules relied upon by writ court were in applicable, we would examine both alternatives to test the validity of impugned order.
3. NDMC issued circular dt.12.12.1989 inviting applications from eligible headmistresses and teachers for the post of Vice Principal in the scale of Rs.2200-4000 and prescribed qualifications for it. Essential qualifications prescribed were Master’s degree from a recognised University, a degree in teaching/education and ten years’ experience in a public/progressive school. Both appellant in LPA No.100/99 and respondent No.2 sought consideration but DPC recommended the appellant only on 16.3.90. After six months or so, it again recommended this appellant for the post of Principal consequent upon upgradation of post of Vice Principal by resolution dated 27.11.90 and to which she was eventually appointed on 4.12.1990.
4. Respondent 1 and 2 filed CWP 5141/94 challenging her appointment to the post of Principal on generalised grounds that she was not qualified and that her appointment was mala fide and so on. They accordingly prayed for a writ of quo warranto calling upon her to vacate the post. They also asked for quashing of circular dated 12.12.89 which had prescribed qualifications for post of Vice Principal and resolution No.29 dated 27.11.1990 where by post of Vice Principal was upgraded to that of Principal.
5. Appellants justified the appointment and denied that appointee fell short of any essential qualification to render her ineligible for the post of Vice Principal and Principal. But while doing so official Appellant in LPA 99/99 admitted that recruitment rules applicable to senior Secondary Schools run by the State Government/Administration were also attracted to the present case. The writ court naturally proceeded on the basis of Delhi Administration Rules and after quoting these in extenso took the view that NDMC had no authority to “reduce the qualification” prescribed by these Rules for the post of Vice Principal and that it was equally incompetent to upgrade the post of Vice Principal to that of Principal and appoint private appellant to that post. It accordingly held that her appointment was contrary to recruitment rules and issued quo warranto directing her to vacate the office and the NDMC to convene the DPC to consider all candidates afresh and to make appointment to the posts on/or before 31.5.1991.
6. Appellants feel aggrieved of this and have filed these Appeals by and large on the same grounds. Their case is that writ court had misdirected itself by holding that NDMC had altered the eligibility by relaxing the qualifications for the two posts. Mr. R. K. Anand, Senior Advocate representing private appellant firstly contended that Navyug School was run and managed by the NDMC which had its own Rules governing the service conditions of teachers working in these Schools and qualifications prescribed therein for the post of Vice Principal were reflected in its circular 12.12.89 vide which applications were invited from eligible candidates in reference to qualifications laid down therein. Private appellant possessed all the requisite qualifications and was recommended to be appointed by DPC. He disputed that Delhi State Education Rules or Delhi Administration Rules and Delhi State Education Rules or Delhi Administration Rules had any application in the matter and even if it was assumed that latter set of rules were attracted, private appellant was still eligible and did not suffer from want of any qualifications. He took us through these Rules to suggest that qualifications prescribed therein were to be possessed by candidates seeking direct recruitment and were not attracted in the case of promotion to the post of Principal. He also pointed to the omission allegedly made by writ court in issuing writ of quo warranto asking private appellant to vacate post of Vice Principal, appointment to which was not challenged by writ petitioners.
7. Learned counsel for writ petitioners (Respondents 1 and 2) Mr. Sinha, on the other hand, sought to introduce a new case altogether. He argued that since Delhi Administration recruitment rules relied upon by writ court were made under Article 309 of the Constitution, NDMC was incompetent to issue Executive Circular dated 12.12.1989 to relax the qualifications prescribed therein. He also alleged that DPC was not validity constituted under rules vitiating the selection and appointment to both posts.
8. Proceeding on the premises that Delhi Administration Recruitment Rules (Notification dated 20.4.77) were applicable, all that remained to be seen was whether these prescribed any qualifications for promotion to post of Principal or whether any such qualification was relaxed to accommodate private appellant and whether her selection or appointment to either post was malafide in any way.
9. It must be pointed out at the very outset that writ petitioner’s writ petition was nore in the nature of a memorandum couched in generalised terms. It nowhere specified any statutory qualification prescribed for the post of Vice Principal which private appellant had failed to possess. It also failed to aver or allege that Appellant-NDMC had no competence to vary or relax such qualifications or that its DPC was ill-constituted. Nor did it specify any particulars of malafides etc. It only complained of favoritism and violation of Rules without laying down any foundation that official appellants had breached any binding Rule or law to appoint private appellant to the post for which she was not qualified. It is surprising that despite this writ court should have assumed that official appellants had “reduced prescribed qualifications” and issued a writ of quo warranto which could only issue in a case where infringement of binding rule/law was proved in the appointment of an unqualified candidate to the public post. A relaxation of prescribed qualifications would not attract a writ of quo warranto straight away unless it was shown that incumbent suffered from patent lack of qualification to hold a public post.
10. Adverting to the relied upon Recruitment Rules we find that a candidate for the post of Vice Principal/Principal was required to possess a Second Class Master’s degree and ten years experience in Higher Secondary School. But this eligibility was applicable for direct recruitment to the post and not promotion and, therefore, it was inconsequential whether private appellant satisfied it was whether she had secured the requisite Division in Master’s degree. Her deficiency allegedly was that she held a third Division Master’s Degree instead of Second and did not possess necessary teaching experience of 10 years in Secondary School though she possessed 15 years over all teaching experience. This, in our view, did not tantamount to lack of essential qualifications so as to invite a writ of quo warranto. Nor was it a case of relaxation of essential qualification by an unauthorised action.
11. It appears to us that the whole issue was misdirected by anomalous stand taken by parties in their pleadings and by reliance on a set of Rules (notification dated 20.4.77) overlooking the crux of the matter. As a result crucial aspects like relevance of circular dated 12.12.89 which held the key to the controversy went abegging. It is a matter of record that applications were invited for the post of Vice Principal and qualifications prescribed by this circular. Both private appellant and writ petitioner (R-2) sought consideration for selection in response thereto and in reference to qualifications laid down therein. They along with other eligible candidates were accorded consideration but private Appellant alone was recommended for appointment. If writ petitioners believed that this circular had altered or relaxed the qualifications prescribed under any recruitment rules, they ought to have set up a case in this regard and laid some foundation in support thereof. Having failed they could not jump from one set of Rules to the other in a bid to prove the appointee’s disqualification. They had also failed to make out any case of malafides and had made a mess of the matter which was compounded by writ court by holding that NDMC had “reduced the qualification to appoint private Appellant to the post of Vice Principal which was not under challenge.
12. All told we find it a curious case of misdirection and issuance of quo warranto writ was both untenable and unsustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. We accordingly quash the impugned judgment passed in CWP 5141/94 to allow these two Appeals leaving parties to bear their own costs.