TEJ KAUR Vs. PUNJAB STATE ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The validity and legality of the order of the Director of Public Instructions, Punjab, dated September 13, 1966 (Annexure 'I') cancelling the earlier orders of the promotion of the petitioner to the grade of Rs. 120-175 with effect from March 1, 1959 (Annexure 'C') and to the grade of Rs. 140-220 with effect from March 1, 1963 (Annexure 'D') and the legality and propriety of the order Annexure 'K' dated September 5, 1967, directing recovery of the amounts (paid to the petitioner on account of the two promotions referred to above) from the petitioner has been questioned in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution on two main grounds, namely (i) that the order Annexure 'I' amounts to an order reducing the petitioner in rank and is liable to be set aside as the punishment has been inflicted on the petitioner without compliance with Article 311(2) of the Constitution; and (ii) the impugned orders have been passed on revising the seniority of the petitioner in the service to her prejudice unilaterally without any notice to the petitioner and without affording her any opportunity to show cause against the proposed charge. The facts which led to the filing of this writ petition may be noticed, in brief, at this stage.

(2.) As a result of the acceptance of the petitioner's application for appointment of one of the permanent pensionable posts of teachers submitted by her in response to the public notice issued by the Directorate of Education, Pepsu, on August 30, 1953 (Annexure 'A') she was appointed as a Junior Vernacular Gyani teacher in Nabha in the Pepsu State in the grade of Rs., 40-60 on and with effect from February 22, 1954. By order Annexure 'B' dated October 1, 1954, petitioner was adjusted in the grade of Rs. 50-100 from the inception of her service. In the extract from the list of teachers attached to Annexure 'B', it appears that even before the passing of that order, the petitioner was already working against a post in the time scale of Rs. 50-100. She was promoted to Rs. 120-175 grade with effect from March 1, 1959 under orders of the Director, Public Instructions, dated May 24, 1960 (Annexure 'C'). With effect from March 1, 1963, she was promoted by order Annexure 'D' dated August 26, 1964, to the still higher grade of Rs. 140-200. Reference had in the meantime been made to Services Selection Board for approving her promotion to the grade of Rs. 120-175. In its memorandum dated July 29, 1964 (Annexure 'E') the Subordinate Services Selection Board wrote to the Director of Public Instructions, Punjab, that the Board had approved the continuance of the petitioner as a C. and V. Teacher (classical and vernacular teacher) in Jullundur Division in the grade which she was drawing at that time i.e. Rs. 120-7-1/2-175 subject to the condition that her seniority is placed at the bottom of the candidates of Jullundur Division at the time i.e. in 1959 when she joined the division. The Director, Public Instructions, Punjab, considered the condition put on the petitioner (for continuing in the grade of Rs. 120-175) by the Services Selection Board as unjustified and, therefore, asked to District Education Officer concerned in the Director's memorandum dated May 6, 1965 (Annexure 'F') for information on certain points as the Director considered that the condition in question did not appear to be tenable, and it was necessary to get that information in order to make a back reference to the Board. The requisite information was given in the petitioner's letter dated June 19, 1965 (Annexure 'C') addressed to the Director of Public Instructions. The record before me does not show as to how the matter of that objection was subsequently dealt with. The fact, however, remains that the Director of Public Instructions had in the meantime started looking into the entitlement of the petitioner to the grade of Rs. 140-200. By communication Annexure 'H' dated September 10, 1965 the Director of Public Instructions asked the District Education Officer, Amritsar under whom the petitioner was working at that time to withhold the petitioner's salary in the higher grade of Rs. 140-200 till further order. Admittedly, without any notice to the petitioner, and without affording her any opportunity whatsoever to show cause against the action proposed to be taken in the matter, order Annexure 'I' dated September 13, 1966 was then passed by the Director of Public Instructions, Punjab, in the following words :-

(3.) The petitioner submitted her representation dated September 11, 1966 (Annexure 'J') against the impugned order. Further directions for the recovery of alleged over-paid amount to the petitioner were given by the Director of Public Instruction, Punjab, in his communication dated September 15, 1967 (Annexure 'K') consequent on the promotion order of the petitioner having been cancelled. The result of the two impugned orders was that the promotion of the petitioner to Rs. 140-200 grade was withdrawn and the date of the petitioner's promotion to the grade of Rs. 120-175 was postponed from March 1, 1959 to March 1, 1963 and recovery was ordered to be made for the excess amount paid to the petitioner before the passing of the impugned orders in respect of the period during which she had in fact worked in the higher grades.