Summary
The Supreme Court sustained cancellation of a principal’s appointment because he lacked the required ten years’ teaching experience on the application deadline. Foreign study leave did not count as teaching experience. A later exemption, granted without retrospective effect, did not cure that deficiency. The continuing availability of the statutory exemption power after the 1982 enactment was expressly left open.
Issues
- Whether foreign study leave or a subsequent exemption cured insufficient teaching experience at the eligibility cutoff.
- Whether the continuing existence of the exemption power required determination.
Held
- The appellant had only nine years and three months of teaching experience on the last application date. The period spent studying abroad, although sanctioned as leave, was not teaching experience and could not meet the mandatory ten-year qualification. (¶¶ 5, 9)
- The interim Supreme Court order merely called for consideration of whether the situation could be salvaged; it did not direct grant of an exemption. The later exemption had no retrospective effect and did not validate eligibility at the application or panel stage. (¶¶ 10, 11)
- Whether the exemption power under the proviso to section 16-E(3) of the 1921 Act survived the 1982 legislation was unnecessary to decide and remained open. If needed, the parties could approach the High Court for independent determination uninfluenced by the existing observations. (¶¶ 11, 12)
Result
Appeals dismissed and transferred case disposed of. Appointment cancellation sustained; question of the post-1982 exemption power expressly left open for independent consideration if subsequently raised.