JARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 28.1.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge upholding the order dated 22.8.2009 (P.9) whereby the request for reinstatement in service as Maths Master made by the appellant has been declined by the Director Public Instructions (Schools), Punjab. The appellant was appointed on 7.7.1998 (P.1) purely on temporary post for a period of two years on probation. According to clause 5 of the appointment letter, the induction of the appellant in service was not only temporary but was subject to his antecedents/character verification. If the antecedents were not found satisfactory, then his service was liable to be terminated without any notice. It was further clarified that the antecedents were to be clarified through the CID/inquiry by the District Education Officer concerned. During the course of verification of his character and antecedents it was found that two criminal cases were registered against him vide FIR No. 1040 dated 16.12.1996 under Sections 419, 420, 461, 471, 120 B IPC PS Kurukshetra and FIR No. 97 dated 1.6.1996 under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120 B IPC PS Dhuri, District Sangrur. In both the FIRs the allegations against the appellant were leakage of question papers of annual examination conducted by the Punjabi University, Patiala. It was alleged that the appellant impersonated and appeared in the examination for some other candidate. In the FIR registered at Police Station Dhuri, cancellation report has been presented which was duly accepted by the Magistrate on 11.3.1988 (P.3). In the other case, the petitioner earned acquittal vide judgement dated 28.3.2006 (P.5). In order to prove his physical presence in the examination, the appellant had refused to give his specimen signatures and specimen of handwriting during his police remand. The other evidence was found to be insufficient by the Magistrate to hold the appellant guilty. On the ground that in one case there was cancellation report, duly accepted by the Magistrate, and in the other case he has earned acquittal, the appellant pressed for his reinstatement. On a direction issued by this Court, the respondents were directed to dispose of his representation. Accordingly, the Director Public Instructions (Schools) has passed an order rejecting the claim of the appellant for reinstatement in service vide order dated 22.8.2009 (P.9). The basic reason given in the order is that the Additional Director General of Police (Intelligence), Punjab after verifying the antecedents of the appellant did not recommend his case for appointment as he was not fit for any public employment. It was pointed out that two criminal cases were pending against him. Thereafter he was served with a notice on 13.1.2000 to seek his response for termination of his service and after considering his reply, his services were terminated as it was not in public interest to retain him in public service.

(2.) The appellant challenged the aforesaid order in a writ petition which has been dismissed on 28.1.2010. The learned Single Judge has rejected his claim by holding that the appellant never completed two years period of probation and therefore he did not acquire a right to hold the post. Therefore, no enquiry was required to be held. It was further held that the employment of a teacher is not an ordinary government service. A teacher is the moulder of our future generation and most precious assets of the nation is entrusted to him. If a teacher lacks in moral values, character or integrity, he would pose a much serious danger to the society then an external aggression by an enemy country. Even a strong suspicion entails to disqualify for appointment as a teacher.

(3.) We have heard, learned counsel for the appellant at a considerable length and are of the view that no case for interference in the view taken by the learned Single Judge is made out. The teacher plays a pivotal role in the society. Children of impressionable age are entrusted to their custody. If his antecedent and character is doubtful then there is nothing wrong if he is declined the relief of reinstatement. The learned Single Judge is absolutely right in observing that most precious assets of the nation cannot be placed in the hands of such persons who have dubious antecedents. No case is made out for admission of the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.