KULDEEP KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner qualified her J.B.T. examination from, Himachal Pradesh in the year 1968. On August 14, 1989, she was selected and appointed as a J.B.T. Teacher at S.D. High School, Anandpur Sahib (Respondent No. 5). The examination passed by her had been recognised by the Punjab Government. This fact is evident from the letter dated May 18, 1989 issued by the Director, Public Instructions (Schools), Punjab to the Deputy Director. A copy of this letter has been produced on record as Annexure P -5. In spite of the Petitioner's qualification having been duly recognised by the State Government, her appointment was not approved. Consequently the Petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 13318 of 1991 in the High Court which was disposed of by order dated December 5, 1991. The Bench directed the State Government to take a decision specifically with regard to the question whether the two year J.B.T. Diploma Course conducted by the Himachal Pradesh Government is recognised for the purpose of employment in the aided school in the State of Punjab. In compliance with the directions of the High Court, it appears that the case was referred to the Government who, - - -vide order dated February 4, 1992 has. decided that the J.B.T. Course passed from the Himachal Pradesh cannot be recognised. As a result, the Petitioner was threatened with the termination of her appointment by the Respondent -School. Accordingly, she has again approached this Court through the present writ petition.

(2.) TWO separate written statements have been filed, one on behalf of a Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 including the State of Punjab and the authorities of the Department of Education and the other on behalf of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, viz. the School. In the written statement filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, it has been inter alia mentioned that according to the "Punjab Government instructions No. 22/14980 - -3. Edu. 7/8453 dated 15th October, 1990 (R -1) J.B.T. Diploma only from State of Punjab is recognised. Since the Petitioner, in this case has done her diploma from Himachal Pradesh instead of State of Punjab, she is not entitled for approval for grant in aid as per the instructions stated in this vary para above." No reason whatsoever has been assigned for the decision. None has been disclosed either in the order or in the written statement.

(3.) ON a perusal of the record of the case, it arrears that, - -vide letter dated May 18. 1989 the Director of Public Instructions had informed various officers that the Punjab Government has recognised the J.B.T. Course "passed from the Himachal Pradesh Government." The Petitioner was appointed after the issue of this letter on August 14, 1989. Even if, subsequently the State Government has taken a decision not to recognise the diploma awarded, by the Himachal Pradesh Government, its decision can have only, prospective effect and govern appointments made after the said decision. The decision of the State Government cannot result in invalidating the appointments already made. Nor it would be fair for the State Government to decline to errant approval in cases where appointments were made when the letter dated May 18, 1989 was in operation.