STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus DEV RAJ AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 185 · Decided: 21-09-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

y 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
v. 
DEV RAJ AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 21, 2007 
[DR.ARIJITPASAYAT ANDLOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] 
A 
B 
Service Law-Absorption-Claim of-Policy decision by State 
Government to take over a School in financial difficulties with its C 
existing staff-Teachers who joined for certain period after policy 
decision taken by State Government claiming absorption-Stay order 
by High Court-Subsequently, court holding that claimants to be 
absorbed-Division Bench dismissing the State 's appeal on the ground 
that claimants working on basis of stay order-Sustainability of-Held: D 
Not sustainable since High Court did not consider the agreement 
between School management and State Government that staff with 
prescribed qualification who were members of staff when policy 
decision was taken to be considered-Thus, matter remitted back. 
State Government entered into an agreement with School E 
Management to take over the School facing financial difficulties with 
its existing staff on 28.3.1983. Respondents-teachers or laboratory 
• 
assistants between 29.6.1983 to 21.1.1984, filed writ petition claiming 
absorption in Government services. Appellant contended that the 
names of the respondents did not exist in staff statement prepared' F 
by staff management at the time principle decision was taken. High 
Court granted stay and the stay order continued. The Single Judge 
of High Court held that though they were employed between 
28.6.1983 and 26.1.1987, there was need for teachers and thus, they 1 
should be absorbed. Aggrieved, appellants filed LP A which was G 
dismissed on the ground that the respondents were continuing since 
1987. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter, the Court 
185 
H 
186 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: There was a corrigendum issued that those staff with 
prescribed qualification who were members of the staff when the 
policy decision was taken were to be considered. The Single Judge 
of the High Court did not consider this aspect. Surprisingly, the 
Division Bench did not consider the merits and on the basis that the 
B respondents were working since 1987, dismissed the LPA. The 
approach is clearly unsustainable. The High Court ought to have 
examined terms of the arrangement between the school management 
and the Government. While deciding the dispute finally the Court 
ought not to be influenced by the fact that some interim arrangements 
c had been made. Such interim arrangements are always subject to 
the outcome of the main dispute. Since the Division Bench has not 
decided the appeal on merits, it is appropriate to remit the matter 
to the High Court for fresh decision. [Paras 5 and 6) [188-C-E; E-F) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4408 of 
D 2007. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.3.2005 of the High Court 
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LP.A. No. 294of2003. 
Krishnan Venugopal and Ajay Pal for the Appellants. 
R.K. Kapoor, M.K. Verma and Anis Ahmed Khan for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench 
of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the Letters Patent 
Appeal filed by the appellants. 
G 
3. The background facts, in a nutshell, are as follows: 
H 
On 7. 9.1980 a resolution was passed by the Janta High School, 
Rattewal, requesting the State Government to take over the institution as 
it was under financial stress. On 28.6.1983 the Government, on principle, 
decided to take over the institution subject to the conditions that a gift 
STATEOFPUNJABv. DEVRAJ[PASAYAT,J.] 
187 
y 
deed along with certificate of qualification of the staff working in the school A 
was to be supplied. Names of the respondent did not appear in the list 
of the staff members. Respondents were appointed on different dates as 
teachers or laboratory Assistants against unaided posts between the period 
29.6.1983 to 21.1.1984. State Government passed an order on 
22.1.1987 taking over the institution subject to the condition that only B 
those staff members who were working at the time of taking over were 
to be continued. On 22.1.1987 sGhool was taken over and the 
y 
stipulations regarding the norms to be adopted were worked out. As 
per clause (3) of the agreement, the Government was not required to take 
under the control all the members of the staff and the Government was 

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