STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus DINESH KUMAR BHARTI

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 400 · Decided: 20-01-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
v. 
DINESH KUMAR BHARTI 
JANUARY 20, 1997 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.) 
SeTVice Law : 
Rajasthan Se1vice Rules, 1951 : 
C 
Rules 6(b)(3)23A, 2~Ad-lwc appointment of Teachers-Regulaiisa-
tion of-Screening Committee found respondent not fit to be confimied--Ter-
mination of seTVice~Decreed by trial court and affirmed by appellate 
court-High Court dismissing the second appeal on the 6fOUnd of limita-
tion-On appeal held, where consultation with Public SeTVice Commission is 
D necessaiy but found not eligible to be co11fi1med three mo11ths notice in writing 
required-In the case of respondent, co11cu1Tence not required-There[ ore the 
view of the Cowts below was obviously i11co1Tect-High Cowt not right in 
dismissing the appeal on ground of delay. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 349 of 
E 
1997. 
F 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.11.92 of the Rajasthan High 
Court in S.A. No. 175 of 1992. 
Aruneshwar Gupta for the Appellant. 
Indra Makwana for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
We have heard learned counsel for both the parties. 
;.( 
:
\ 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the single 
~ 
Judge of the Rajasthan High Court made on November 4, 1992 in S.A. No. 
175 of 1992. The learned Judge dismissed the second appeal on the ground 
H of limitation. After hearing the karned counsel for both the parties, instead 
400 
STATE v. D.K. BHARTI 
401 
of remanding the matter, we think that it can be disposed of on merits. The A 
respondent was appointed on ad hoc basis as a teacher on September 30, 
1970. The Screening Committee constituted to regularise the services of 
the ad hoc teachers found that the respo_ndent was not fit to be confirmed. 
On the basis thereof, the order of termination came to be made on May 8, 
1974. It was challenged in the suit. Ultimately, when it was decreed by the 
trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court, the High Court dismissed 
the second appeal on the ground of limitation. The District Judge relied 
upon Rule 23A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 to hold that prior 
notice required by Rule 23A was not given to terminate the service. So the 
order is bad in law. Rule 6(b ),(3) of the Rules provides thus : 
"Rule 6(b)(3)-that a person holding any of the following grade I 
post in sections B, C, D, E and F or any of the posts in section 
B 
c 
"A" of the scheduled on 31-12-72 in an ad hoc/officiating/temporary 
capacity and who had continuously held the said post or would 
have held any of these posts but for his deputation elsewhere, for D 
a period not less than six months on 15-12-1971 and was working 
as such on the date of publication of these (amendment) Rules 
shall be screened by a committee referred to in Rule 25, for 
adjudging his suitability for such post, provided he possesses the 
qualifications prescribed in the rules either for direct recruitment 
or for promotion or the prescribed qualification of the posts on E 
the basis of which he was appointed in the ad hoc or officiating or 
temporary capacity on such post." 
Under Rule 25, Screening Committee was appointed to adjudge the 
suitability of ad hoc teachers for regularisation. As a consequence of the F 
above rule, the Screening Committee considered the persons holding post 
of temporary or officiating basis or in ad hoc capacity who had continuously 
held the post for period of not less than six months as on December 15, 
1971 and were working as such on the date of the publication of the 
Amendment of the rules. They were required to be screened by a Com-
mittee constituted under Rule 25 to adjudge their suitability to the posts G 
provided they possess the qualification prescribed under the Rule either 
for the direct recruitment or for promotion or the prescribed qualification 
of the posts on the basis of which they were appointed in ad hoc or 
officiating or temporary capacity. Admittedly, the Committee was con-
stituted in 1974 under Rule 25 and the Committee came to the conclusion H 
402 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997] 1 S.C.R. 
A that the respondent was not fit to be confirmed. Rule 23A was inserted 
w.e.f. July 10, 1981. Rule 23A(2) reads as under: 
B 
c 
D 
"The service of a temporary Government servant who has been in 
continuous Government service for more than three years and who 
satisfied the suitability in respect of age and qualifications 
prescribed for the post and has be

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