State of
Punjab & Ors. Vs. Swaran Kaur And Ors., [2007] Insc 248 (7 March 2007)
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
(Arising out of SLP (C ) Nos. 17661-17662/05) Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Leave granted.
Challenge in these appeals is to the orders passed by a Division Bench of
the Punjab and Haryana High Court. One of them relates to the orders passed in
the writ petition while other one relates to the order passed in a review
application.
The basic question raised in the writ petition filed by the respondents was
whether the authorities were justified in holding that they did not possess the
requisite qualification for appointment under the Punjab State Class IV Service
Rules, 1963 (in short the 'Rules'). The State of Punjab had taken over Chanan Devi
Memorial girl High School, Saleem Tabri, Ludhiana under certain conditions so
far as the employment of the members of staff concerned. The Director Public
Instructions, Punjab wrote to the District Education Officer, Chandigarh to
ensure that all the members of the staff fulfil the requisite qualification for
recruitment to the relevant post.
Taking exception to the view expressed by the District Education officer
that the writ petitioners who are the respondents in these appeals did not
possess requisite qualification. Writ petition was filed stating that said view
is not sustainable in law. Purportedly acting on a basis of a concession made
by learned Additional Advocate General, who was appearing in the writ petition,
the writ petition was allowed. The learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab
purportedly conceded that the rules were not applicable to the case of the writ
petitioner. Subsequently a review petition was filed stating that the
concession was uncalled for because the letter of the Director, Public
Instructions, Punjab dated 17.11.1995 addressed to the District Education
officer, Chandigarh clearly stipulated the terms for continuance in service.
The High Court dismissed the review application on the ground that there was no
prescription in the said letter which would indicate applicability of the
rules.
In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
the view of the High Court is clearly untenable. The Director, Public
Instructions had clearly stipulated in the said letter that it was the duty of
the District Education Officer to ensure that all the members of the staff of
the taken over educational institute fulfil the requisite qualification for
recruitment to the relevant posts. With reference to the rules it is pointed
out that certain educational qualifications have been prescribed which the
respondents did not possess.
In response learned counsel for the respondents submitted that more than a
decade has since elapsed and it would not be proper to interfere with the order
of the High Court which was based initially on concession and subsequently on a
finding recorded that there was no prescription in the letter dated 17.11.1995
relating to educational qualifications.
At this juncture it is necessary to take note of the relevant provisions in
the Rules which read as follows:
" Rule 5 : No person shall be recruited to the Service by direct
appointment unless he (a) produces certificates of character from two
responsible persons, not being his relatives, who are well acquainted with him
in private life;
(b) is not less than 16 years and not more than 35 years of age on the date
of appointment;
(c) has not more than one wife living and in the case of a woman, is not
married to a person already having a living wife:
Provided that the Government may, if satisfied that there are special
grounds for doing so, exempt any person from the operation of this clause; and
(d) possesses the requisite knowledge of the regional languages and of English
as may be prescribed by the Government from time to time:
Provided that the appointing authority may, if it is of the opinion that the
candidate is otherwise fit to discharge his duties satisfactorily, relax any of
the qualification prescribed under this clause."
Similarly in the letter of Director of Public Instructions it was clearly
stated as follows:
"..it is the duty of the District Education Officer to see that all of
them fulfil the requisite qualification for recruitment in the relevant
posts."
The effect of the afore-stated rule and the indication in the letter has not
been considered by the High Court. In the circumstances, we set aside the
orders of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration. We
make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits. The High
Court is requested to dispose of the writ petition as early as practicable.
The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent without any order as to
costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
