AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
REPORTABLE
By both the writ petitions, the order passed by the Rajasthan Non-Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur dt.01/02/2001 has been assailed and therefore, both the writ petitions are being decided commonly.
For the purpose of convenience and reference, the facts as stated and being culled out from SB Civil Writ Petition No.2134/2001 filed by Shri Mahesh Sewa Samiti, are being taken into consideration. The difference between two writ petitions shall be dealt with later.
Brief facts are that the respondent No.1-Smt. Sheela James was appointed on the post of Teacher Gr. II initially on 7 th July, 1982 and worked upto 31st August, 1985. It is submitted that the appointment was of adhoc nature and she resigned thereafter but was again appointed on 10th July, 1986 as Teacher Gr. II against the post of Teacher Gr. I and she continued to work upto 15 th May, 1987 whereafter she again resigned. It is further submitted that
on 10th July, 1991, she was again appointed as Teacher Gr. II against the post of Teacher Gr. I alone. It is stated that the permission was granted by the Director of Education to allow the petitioner and as the suitable candidate was not available for the post of Teacher Gr.I, she was allowed to continue as Teacher Gr.II against the sanctioned post of Teacher Gr. I but was paid salary of Teacher Gr. II alone. However, it is stated that vide letter dt.17 th April, 1998 the institute received a direction from the department that they must fill the post of Teacher Gr.I in accordance with Rules failing which no aid will be disbursed of the salary of the respondent no.1. It was further submitted that the District Education officer vide his letter dt.1st June, 1998 directed to fill up the post of Teacher Gr.I. Explaining the entire position, a letter was sent on 16th June, 1998 to the respondent No.1 to dispense with her services in compliance of the directions issued by the District Education officer. It was so as the respondent No.1 did not possess the educational qualifications for the post of Teacher Gr. I and it was informed that as soon as the post is filled from someone who is duly qualified, her services shall be disposed with.
It was further stated that the institution was receiving 70% aid for sanctioned post and as the sanctioned post was available of only Teacher Gr.I, the petitioner could not be allowed to continue in view of specific objection taken by the State Government with the threat not to allow aid for a Teacher who was not qualified for the post of Teacher Gr.I.
The letter dated 16th June, 1998 came to be challenged by the respondent no.1-Smt. Sheela James before the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur wherein it was stated that her appointment was after due sanction from the Director, Education as a Teacher Gr.II, she had completed Graduation in Home Sciences in the year 1979 and had also acquired Degree of B.Ed. In the year 1980. It is stated that she was initially appointed as a Senior Teacher on 7 th July, 1982 and she continued to perform her duties till 31 st August, 1985 and her services have been extended from time to time and she was also granted the benefit of pay during vacation and was thus a substantive employee on permanent basis and her services could not have been dispensed with in the manner in which the institute wanted taking umbrage of orders passed by the State Government for filling up the post of Teacher Gr. I. It was further stated that in the year 1991-92, the qualifications for the post of Lecturer in Home Sciences was only Graduate and B.Ed. And even the Rajasthan Public Service Commission had issued an advertisement for the post of School Lecturer in Home Sciences keeping qualification of Graduation in Home Sciences. She had been working for more than seven years and also possessed the qualifications for the post of Teacher Gr. I i.e. the School Lecturer as laid down by RPSC. In view thereof, there was no occasion to dispense with her services, keeping in view that she was in service with the institute for last 16 years which included 7 years previous continuous service.
So far as the question regarding the respondent No.1 being in service with the institute, was not denied. In view of the submissions made before the Tribunal, the Tribunal also, by an interim order, allowed the respondent No.1 to continue as Teacher
Gr. II.
The Tribunal vide its order dt.1st February,2001 allowed appeal of the respondent No.1 holding that the said respondent could not be removed from service merely at the asking of the State Government by the Managing Committee. It was also noted by the Tribunal that the Directorate of Education itself had granted sanction to the institute for giving appointment to the petitioner on the post of Teacher Gr. II and now, the department cannot turn around and direct to dispense with services of the respondent No.1 and the letter dt.16th June, 1998 was set aside by the Tribunal
Feeling aggrieved of this order, the institute through its Society and the State both have assailed the same by filing these petitions with the ground that the Tribunal could not have allowed the respondent No.1 to continue as the post was that of Teacher Gr.I/School Lecturer and as the respondent No.1 was not a Post Graduate in Home Sciences, she could not be allowed to hold the said post.
The case of the State Government is essentially on the same
lines. The petitioner-institute submits that it will not receive any aid for the post which was a sanctioned post of Teacher Gr.I as
such it had no option but to give a notice of dispensing with services of the respondent No.1.
So far as the State is concerned, it has also filed SB Civil Writ Petition No.5605/2001 challenging order of the Tribunal on the ground that the order passed by them directing the management of the institute to fill up the post of Teacher Gr.I has not been assailed by the respondent No.1. It is further submitted that Teacher Gr.II could not be allowed to function against the post of Teacher Gr.I.
Heard counsel for the parties and looked into the material available on file of both the writ petitions.
The admitted position which culls out from both the writ petitions is that the petitioner-State Government had permitted appointment of the respondent No.1 as a Teacher Gr.II against the post of Teacher Gr.I in the subject of Home Sciences and for seven years, she has been continuously worked without break and has also been paid salary for the post of Teacher Gr.II as an aided
post. However, no reasons have come for ward as to why and for what reason the continuance of the respondent No.1 was objected by the State when they themselves allowed her to continue for seven years against the post of Teacher Gr.I. Moreover, it has also come on record that even the RPSC had allowed selections on the post of Teacher Gr.I (Lecturer, School Education) with the qualifications which the respondent No.1 possess. Thus, the Educational Tribunal was right in passing the order of allowing the petitioner to continue and also quashing the order dt.16 th June,
1998. No illegality can be said to have been committed by the Education Tribunal.
Consequently, both the petitions being devoid of merit are dismissed.
It has come on record that a registered letter has been addressed to Hon'ble the Chief Justice by her stating that she is continuing on the post but is being only paid a fixed amount.
In view of what has been stated herein above, it is directed that the State Government shall release 70% aid against the post on which the respondent no.1 has been working as Teacher Gr.II i.e. in the pay-scale of Teacher Gr.II and the entire amount alongwith 30% share of the management shall be paid to her after deducting the amount which she has already received. The arrears shall be paid to her within a period of three months from the date of passing of this order and it goes without saying that if this order is not complied with within the period stipulated above, contempt proceedings may be initiated without notice.