SATWANT KHERA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts which are either admitted or proved on record would go to show that Mrs. Satwant Khera was initially appointed as a Sanskrit Teacher on March 2, 1973 for a period of six months on ad hoc basis. Mrs. Kamlesh Manocha was also appointed as Sanskrit Teacher on January 29, 1968 as well on ad hoc basis; whereas Mrs. Usha Rani was appointed as Sanskrit Teacher w.e.f. May 25, 1972 in Sohna. All the three petitioners in this case held the post upto March 31, 1973, September 11, 1973 and September 24, 1973 respectively when their services were terminated. It was a mass strike of teachers in the State of Haryana w.e.f. February 12, 1973 which continued upto March 9, 1973. Admittedly, they (the petitioners) did not go on strike. The State Government took a decision in the year 1975 that those teachers whose services were terminated after the strike of 1973 and who possessed the qualification of B.A., B.Ed. with Sanskrit be reappointed. In consequence of the decision of the Government, respondent No. 2 asked the District Education Officers to send the particulars of such teachers. It is sufficiently reflected from letter dated November, 1975, Annexure P-1. Besides, the Haryana Government in the year 1976 also took a general policy decision to accommodate by reappointing all such teachers, who fulfilled the basic qualifications and who had not participated in the strike of 1973. Paragraph 11 of the aforesaid policy decision is as follows :-

(2.) Mr. Patwalia, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that the impugned orders terminating the services of the petitioners after so many years of continuous service are wholly illegal and have caused total injustice to the petitioners. The action of the respondents is arbitrary and against Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Patwalia further contends that the present was not a case of concealment of facts at the time of seeking appointments. The qualifications of the petitioners were well-known to the authorities and no misstatement was made at any stage while seeking the appointments. He further contends that even though the petitioners may not be answering strictly the qualifications as spelt out from instructions the same in their case shall be deemed to have been waived on account of solitary fact that they came to be employed or re-employed keeping in view the devotion to duty that they had exhibited while restraining from joining the strike. It was specifically mentioned in the various policy decisions referred to above that the qualification required for such teachers who had not joined the strike was to be B.A., B.Ed and therefore, any extra qualification made out from the instructions by necessary intendment were deemed to have been waived. The Government thus, was conscious of the qualification of the petitioners and even though in the orders of appointments no specific relaxation was mentioned, the same shall be implied, contends the counsel. His further contention is that the order Annexure P-7 terminating the services of the petitioners is violative of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no reason was disclosed nor the petitioners were offered any opportunity of hearing. It is further made out by the learned counsel that a number of other persons who also possessed the same qualifications which the petitioners had were working in the State of Haryana. Some instances have been quoted in paragraph 17 of the petition and on the basis of the said averments, it is contended that there is no distinction in the case of persons who were continuing in the job without holding the requisite qualifications as that of the petitioners. It is a case of hostile discrimination between citizens equally situate and on that account too the impugned orders deserve to be set aside as they violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

(3.) A perusal of written statement shows that the main plank of the respondent to defend the cause of the petitioners is that for women S.T.C. training is absolutely necessary, whereas the qualifications of the petitioners is B.A. with Sanskrit B.Ed. The aforesaid necessary qualification is made out from paragraph 12 of the letter issued by the Director Public Instructions, Haryana bearing No. 2/7-80-E-II(4), dated April 28, 1980 and inasmuch as the petitioners were not possessing the requisite qualification prescribed for the post as made out from the aforesaid letter, the respondents were justified to terminate the services of the petitioners. On the question of discrimination the stand of the respondents is rather interesting. The averments made in paragraph 17 of the written statement do not controvert the specific instances cited in the corresponding paragraph 17 of the petition. However, it is contended that insofar as Melu Ram was concerned he too was B.A. with Sanskrit B.Ed., but he was recommended by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab, whereas Raghubir Singh was recommended by Haryana Public Service Commission. It is further made out in the said paragraph of the written statement that the circumstances under which such persons were appointed were not known to the respondents and it was possible that the Government might have relaxed qualifications in their case in view of non-availability of qualified candidates.