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.