VIDYA PARISAD, BAHALGARH Vs. DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, HARYANA, SIKSHA BHAWAN, SECTOR 5, PANCHKULA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is at the instance of management of a school that had originally appointed the 2nd respondent to the post of a Sanskrit teacher after an interview held on 14.08.2004 for which approval had also been given by the Commissioner-cum-Director General of School Education on 07.02.2006. Acting on the alleged complaint by a person by name Vinod Sharma, who was a candidate for the post for the Sanskrit Teacher questioning the eligibility of the 2nd respondent's candidature, the District Education Officer had appointed Block Development Officer to enquire into the circumstances of appointment of the 2nd respondent. The enquiry yielded to a finding that the appointment was not regular when the 1st respondent declared the appointment of the 2nd respondent as invalid by order dated 07.02.2011 and directed the petitioner management to relieve her within a period of 7 days. The management purported to have relieved her from duty on 17.02.2011. Aggrieved at the decision, which was said to have been taken without involving the 2nd respondent in any form of enquiry or giving an opportunity to show cause against such dismissal, she filed a writ petition before this Court in C.W.P. No.3354 of 2011, which was ordered on 24.02.2011 that the status quo was to be maintained. The 2nd respondent sought for a direction for enforcement of the order and the Director of Secondary School Education joined issues to demand the Principal of the petitioner-management to comply with the orders.

(2.) The petitioner-management replied contending that the termination of the teacher had been effected on 17.02.2011 and sent to her through a registered post while the order of the High Court directing the status quo to be retained was made only on 24.02.2011 and therefore, there was no compulsion for taking her back in service. The Director of School Education subsequently passed an order on 08.04.2011 recalling the earlier order passed by him on 07.02.2011 directing the termination of service of the 2nd respondent. It is this order dated 08.04.2011 that is in challenge by the management.

(3.) The school management contends that the appointment that had been issued to the 2nd respondent initially on the recommendation of a Selection Committee duly constituted was not a correct decision. The 2nd respondent was only a Graduate with Sanskrit as an elective subject with B.Ed qualification. The person with such qualification should not have been considered when there were other candidates, who had the requisite qualification as laid down under the Rules for the post of Sanskrit Teacher. The statutory Rules provided the following minimum qualification: (i) Shastri/B.A (Honours in Sanskrit) from a recognized University or (ii) LTC/O.T in Sanskrit conducted by Haryana Education Department or an equivalent qualification recognized by the Haryana Education Department or (iii) B.T./B.Ed with Sanskrit as teaching subject from a recognized University. As per the Rules a candidate with B.A and B.Ed could be considered only when the candidates with the primary qualifications referred to above were not available. In this case there were 7 candidates, who amongst the 11 interviewed, possessed the preferential qualification and therefore, the 2nd respondent could not have been considered at all.