1. These appeals are directed against the order of the State Administrative Tribunal. The grievance of the appellants, who are Post-Graduate Teachers, having Post-Graduate Degree as the qualification, is the prescription of a ratio in the rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, for promotion to the post of Headmasters of Higher Secondary Schools in the ratio of 2:5:2, for Headmasters of the Secondary Schools, 5 for Post-Graduate Teachers of the Higher Secondary Schools and 2 for inducted teachers, who originally did not have the prescribed qualification to continue as Post-Graduate Teacher in the Higher Secondary Schools, but became so qualified on acquiring the qualification by way of condensed course.
2. Consequent upon the change of the educational pattern when 10 + 2 + 3 system was introduced in the State of Tamil Nadu in the year 1977, with effect from Academic Session 1978, it became necessary to have separate set of teachers for the Higher Secondary Classes, namely, Classes XI and XII. It was stipulated that only those, who possess the qualification of Post-Graduate Decree in the subject could be eligible to teach the Higher Secondary Classes. Since large number of existing teachers of the Secondary Schools had not acquired that qualification, by Government Order, a time was allowed to those people to acquire the same within the period of 5 years. Within the time permitted, many of them acquired the qualification of Post-Graduate Decree in the subject and therefore were allowed to continue as Teacher in the Higher Secondary Classes. Those who could not qualify themselves were, however, further given a chance by way of a condensed course for 10 months. On completion of their condensed course and acquiring the Diploma thereunder, they also became eligible to be continued as a Teacher in the Higher Secondary Classes. Their eligibility to continue as Teacher has not been assailed at any point of time. In 1992, by way of an Executive Order, the State Government provided for a ratio for filling up of post of Principal to those Higher Secondary Schools and Executive Order was substituted by a set of rules under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution with effect from 29-6-1994. It is this rule providing for a ratio in respect of these inducted teachers, which was the subject matter of challenge before the Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order came to the conclusion that there has been no discrimination in providing a quota for these inducted teachers to be appointed as Principal of the Higher Secondary Schools and dismissed the application filed by the Post-Graduate Teachers. Against this order of the Tribunal, the present appeals have been preferred. It is contended with vehement that prescribing a quota for the unqualified people like the condensed course teachers is grossly discriminatory and it prejudices the chance of promotion of the regular Post-Graduate Teachers and there is no reasons or rationale to have a separate qualification between the Post-Graduate Teachers having Post-Graduate Degree as their qualification and such Post-Graduate Teachers, who are called inducted teachers, who became eligible only by virtue of having their condensed course qualification. The counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, took us through the asset ions made in the counter-affidavit indicating the reasons, which the employer, the State Government a quota for these group of inducted teachers. Prescribing a quota in the matter of promotion has already been considered in several decisions of this Court and has been upheld in P. Murugesan v. 1993 AIR State of Tamil Nadu and T. R. Kothandaraman v. T. N. Water 1994 AIR] Supply and Drainage B. D. . The Rule mak ing authority having permitted the inducted teachers to continue as teacher for the Higher Second ary Classes like other Post Graduate Teachers, it necessary ily follows that such inducted teachers could not be debarred from being appointed as Head masters of the Higher Secondary Schools inasmuch as the feeder category for filling up the post of Headmasters, for the Higher Sec ondary Schools are:
(i) The Headmasters of the Secondary Schools;
(ii) The existing Post-Graduate Teachers of the Higher Secondary Schools; and
(iii) The inducted teachers who also re the teachers of the Higher Secondary Schools.
Having regard to the period taken by such inducted teachers to get into the promotional avenue of the Headmasters of the Higher Secondary Schools and having regard to the nature and duties of the Headmasters of such Higher Secondary Schools, if the rule making authority prescribes a quota the ratio of 5:2 between the Post-Graduate Teachers of the Higher Secondary Schools and inducted teachers of the Higher Secondary Schools, the same cannot be struck down as arbitrary or irrational. The considerations which weighed with the rule making authority for prescribing the quota as indicated in the counter affidavit must be held to be germane to the issue and cannot be held to be extraneous consideration. In view of the assertions made in the counter-affidavit filed by the State Government before the Tribunal, which has formed a part of the records of these appeals as well as the counter-affidavit filed in this Court, we see no infraction of any constitutional provisions in prescribing a quota for the inducted teachers, who, we are told, are a dying cadre as on today. In these circumstances, we see no justification to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal. These appeals are accordingly dismissed.