STA TE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus SWARAN KAUR AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 640 · Decided: 07-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
STA TE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
v. 
SW ARAN KAUR AND ORS. 
MARCH 7, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
Punjab State Class IV Service Rules, 1963-School taken over by 
State-Letter by Director Public Instructions directing District Education 
Officer to ensure that all members of staff fulfilled the requisite qualification 
relevant for the post-Authorities of view that respondents not fulfilled the 
requisite qualification-Writ petition by respondents allowed by High Court-
On appeal, held, High Court did not consider the effect of 1963 Rules and 
the indication in the letter-Matter remitted to High Court for fresh 
consideration. 
The State of Punjab had taken over the School. The Director Public 
Instructions Wrote to the District Education Officer to ensure that all the 
members of staff fulfilled the requisite qualification for recruitment to the 
relevant post. The authorities held that the respondent did not possess the 
requisite qualification for appointment under the Punjab State Class IV 
Service Rules, 1963. 
The respondent filed writ petition challenging the view of Authorities. 
The Additional Advocate General conceded that the Rules were not applicable 
to the case of respondent. However, on the basis of concession by Additional 
Advocate General, High Court allowed the writ petition. The review petition 
was also dismissed on the ground that there was no presumption on the said 
letter which would indicate applicability of the Rules. Hence these appeals. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The effect of the Punjab State Class IV Service Rules, 1963 and 
the indication in the letter has not been considered by the High Court. In the 
circumstances, the orders of the High Court is set aside and the matter is 
remitted to it for fresh consideration. [Para 8) (643-8-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1185 of2007. 
640 
t • 
"-
.'r ' 
STATEOFPUNJABv. SWARANKAUR[PASAYAT..I.] 
641 
'r 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 27.4.2004 and 13.5.2005 of the A 
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP.No. 2899/2003 and 
RA No. 62/2005 in CWP No. 2899/2003. 
H.S. Munjral and Arun K. Sinha for the Appellants. 
R.K. Kapoor, M.K. Verma, Govind Kaushik, S.S. Yadav and Anis Ahmed B 
Khan for the Respondents. 
~ 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
J 
t 
DR. ARIJIT P ASAY AT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
c 
2. 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. 
3. The basic question raised in the writ petition filed by the respondents D 
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 E 
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 F 
.<\ 
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 G 
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. 
H 
642 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
4. In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the app
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.