LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. versus KULWANT KAUR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. v. KULWANT KAUR APRIL 25, 2006 B (S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] Rajasthan Panchayat Samili & Zila Parishad Service Rules, 1959-Rule 59-Teacher possessing Diploma in tailoring appointed as primary teacher C on temporary basis-In pursuance of Circular and also decision of Supreme Court, services of such teachers possessing only diploma in tailoring and not requisite qualification terminated-Writ Petitions challenging the termination-- Termination order stayed and Government directed to send such teachers for requisite training and on completion to regularise their service-Validity of- Held: Teachers did not possess essential qualification as such had no legal D right to continue in service-Interim order passed in her favour would not mean that she held valid post or termination order was bad in law-Also equity not in her favour since she continued to be in service-Thus, services rightly terminated-Service law. The minimum qualification for the post of Primary School Teacher E was Matriculation and Basic Short Training Certificate (BSTC) course in terms of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis & Zita Parishad Service Rules, 1959. Respondent possessed Diploma in tailoring and was temporarily appointed as a Grade-III teacher. In pursuance of the Circular of the Director, Primary and Secondary Education directing termination of the F services of temporary teachers who possessed only diploma in Tailoring, respondent's services were terminated. On Writ Petition, High Court stayed the termination order and directed that such teachers should be sent for obtaining the requisite training. Thereafter, in view of the decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Shyam Lal Joshi & Ors. services of all the teachers who did not possess the requisite qualification were directed G to be terminated. Respondent's services were also terminated. She again filed a writ petition. Stay order was passed and she continued in service. Single Judge of High Court dismissed both the writ petitions. Division Bench of High Court quashed the termination order and directed the Government to give her training in case the appellant did not possess the H 326 STA TE OF RAJASTHAN v. KULW ANT KAUR 327 requisite qualification, and on completion regularize her services. A However, it did not notice that the Rules of 1959 were substituted by Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, wherein the educational qualification of temporary teacher was (i) Senior Secondary under New (to+ 2) Scheme or Higher Secondary under Old Scheme from Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education or equivalent (ii) B.S.T.C. Hence the B present appeals. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. Respondent did not possess requisite qualification, as such had no legal right to continue in service. Only because the order of C termination of service of respondent was directed to be stayed and in obedience of the interim orders passed by the High Court, she was allowed to continue in services, the same cannot lead to the conclusion that she had been validly holding the post or the order of termination was bad in law. Thus, the termination order is not bad in law. (333-D-EJ 1.2. Actus Curiae neminem gravabit is a well known maxim. Thus, the orders passed by the appellant could not have been directed to be set aside D by the High Court on the grounds stated. High Court did not arrive at a finding that the respondent was possessed of basic essential qualification, both as regard general education as well as the training. [333-H; 334-A) E 1.3. It is also not a case where equity Is in favour of the Respondent. Only because an interim order was passed in her favour, the same would not mean that despite the fact that she did not possess requisite qualifications, her services would be allowed to continue. Even the old Rules were not applicable in her case. The matter would have been p different had she acquired the requisite qualification prior to issuance of order of termination in 1994. Admittedly, she had not by then completed her training. Even at that point of time, she was not possessed of the Short Training Certificate. Thus, her services had rightly been terminated and the purported acquisition of qualification by her in 1996 would be of no significance. [334-A-CJ G State of Rajasthan v. Shyam Lal Joshi and Ors., [1994) 1 SCC 593 and Mohd. Sartaj & Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors., (2006) l Scale 2
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.