SMT. SANTOSH YADAV versus STATE OF,HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 280 · Decided: 02-05-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI, K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
SMT. SANTOSH YADAV 
v. 
STATE OF,HARYANA AND ORS. 
MAY 2, 1996 
(M.M. PUNCHHI AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Education Department, Govemment of Haryan<r-Teacher-Qualifica-
tions-Candidate possessing teacher's training Ce1tificate from Secondary 
Education Board, U.P.-Appointed on six monthly basis in 
198o--Regularised in 1984---0rder relieving her from service passed in 1990 
stating that appoill/ment of teacher with diploma/ceitificate from other State 
was irregular-Held, Oil account of relaxation given by letter dated 27.7.1981 
and the employee havillg eamed regularity in seivice it was wholly wrong and 
D arbitra1y on the part of the Govemment to have deprived her of her jolr-She 
would be entitled to back wages and seniority. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7748 of 
1996. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.4.90 of the Punjab & 
F 
G 
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 5067 of 1990. 
Ranbir Yadav for P. Gaur for the Appellants. 
Ms. Nisha Bagchi for Ms. Indu Malhotra for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
The High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellant in limine. 
The appellant had put to challenge order dated 27.3.1990 (Annexure-
H) whereby she was conveyed by the School authorities under whom she 
was working as a Hindi Teachress, that since she had secured her Teacher's 
Training from the Secondary Education Board, U.P., Bareilly, which was 
not recognized by the Haryana Government, she had to be relieved from 
H her dutie.s thenceforth with immediate effect. By one stroke of pen, her 
280 
SANTOSH Y ADA V v. STA TE 
281 
long durated service spanning from 21.10.1980 onwards, which began on 
six monthly basis, (ignoring small gaps here and there) till the year 1990 
was wiped out; whereas undeniably other Teachers similarly situated on six 
months' basis, had been able to mature as permanent teachers entitled to 
continue in service. The lone disquieting factor was that the appellant had 
a diploma which <lid not have the approval of the Haryana Government 
and yet in laxity teachers had been appointed) in order to draw work out 
of them, to meet the State's educational needs. 
It was for the iirst time on 7.7.1981 (copy of instruction placed on 
A 
B 
file) that the Directornte of Education, Haryana woke up from its slumber 
informing all concerned that it had come to the notice of the Department C 
that persons who had obtained their teacher's training diploma/certificate 
from other States were being recruited or appointed and it need be notified 
that the method was irregular. It was therefore, desired that in future only 
those persons shall be recruited who have obtained their teachers' training 
diploma/certificate from Haryana Education Department. All concerned D 
were further required to strictly adhere to these instructions and also to 
bring all these to the notice of all the appointing authorities under the 
jurisdiction of the Government as well as non-government (but recognised) 
institutions for strict compliance. 
It is on the basis of the aforesaid letter dated 7.7.1981 that services E 
of the appellant were terminated on 27.7.1990. 
It is not denied that the appellant was taken in service on the basis 
of the diploma/certificate she possessed, having obtained it from the Secon-
dary Education Board, U.P., Bareilly and that her six months' terms were 
F 
kept renewed from time to time, ignoring small gaps in between, as was 
the pattern. Therefore we fail to see that when she was acceptable in 1980 
and her terms were kept renewed from time to tin1e uptil 22.5.1982, and 
onwards, whereafter she was confirn1c<l in the year 1984, how could her 
service be terminated in the year 1990, when she had attained regularity in 
service. It is significant to note that the letter dated 7.7.1981. ·was itself G 
watered down on 22.7.1981 (Annexure A) clarifying that the ban imposed 
on recruitment of persons who had obtained their diplomas/certificates 
from non-recognised institutions, would not apply to those who were 
working as teachers on stop-gap/adhoc/six months' basis before the sum-
mer vacation of 1981. Concededly, the appellant occupied that position as H 
A 
B 
282 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS f1996j SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
~h1,; was \vorking on six n1onthly ba~is immediately before the summer 
vacation of 1991. Thus, on account of such relaxation being available for 
her and she having e<trnc<l regularity in he

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.