NEELAM KUMARI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CORRECTNESS of the decision rendered by the Division Bench in Civil Writ Petition No. 14364 of 1990, Harpal Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. , decided on July 11, 1991, having been doubted on the ground that the instructions issued by the State of Punjab on May 9, 1960, were not brought to the notice of the Bench, hearing the aforesaid case, the present writ petition has been put up before the Full Bench for decision.

(2.) SHRI Parshotam Singh, father of Neelam Kumari, the petitioners, was working as Clerk in the office of Settlement Officer, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab at Ajnala. He died on August 25, 1963. He left behind the. petitioner, his daughter, and his widow, Smt. Santosh Kumari. The petitioner was minor at that time. After attaining majority, she applied for being appointed as Arts and Crafts teacher on compassionate grounds, as per instructions of the State Government dated April 18, 1973. Alongwith her application, she submitted a certificate of Arts and Crafts teacher training course completed during the session 1979-81, Annexure P/1. Respondent No. 5/director, Consolidation of Holdings, recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment on February 8, 1988, to the Director, Public Instructions, Secondary Education Punjab. Copy of his letter is Annexure P/2. Director, Education Department, Punjab forwarded application of the petitioner to the District Education Officer, Hoshiarpur, respondent No. 3 alongwith enclosures in original for appointment of petitioner on priority basis, vide letter Annexure P/3, on May 2. 1988. The District Education Officer acknowledging receipt of application of the petitioner wrote letter Annexure P/4 on May 30, 1988, to the Director Education Department, Punjab to know if the training certificate obtained from Haryana by the petitioner had been recognised as equivalent to Arts and Crafts Course of the Punjab Stale, Annexure P/5 in reply to the aforesaid Setter, asking the District Education Officer to take action in accordance with the instructions of the department issued from time to time Again, District Education Officer, Hoshiarpur, wrote back to the Director, Education Department on October 12, 1988, copy Annexure P/6 to seek information whether Arts and Crafts Teacher Training Course 1981 Diploma passed from Haryana State is recognised by the Punjab Government. Reference was made to State Government's letter dated September 17/20, 1985, mentioning that the certificate passed from Haryana State was not recognised to he equivalent to Arts and Crafts Teacher Training Course in Punjab. There after application of the petitioner in original was sent to the District Education Officer, Jallandhar-respondent No. 4, for appointment of the petitioner on priority basis, on February 16, 1989, copy Annexure P/7. The petitioner issued a reminder on December, 6. 1989, copy Annexure P-8, addressed to District Education Officer, Hoshiarpur, respondent No. 3, seeking appointment as Arts and Crafts teacher on priority basis, pointed our that the persons like the petitioner were already working in Punjab and they had also obtained such like diplomas from Haryana. Annexwre P/9 is the copy of letter of the Punjab Government Education Department dated February 10, 1989, addressed to the Director, Education Department, to the effect that the candidates who bad passed J. B. T. Training Course from Haryana State were recognised to be qualified and equivalent to J. B. T. passed from the Punjab State. This was with reference to Punjab Government's letter dated July 12. 1988, and after the aforesaid date they had stopped recognising J. B. T. Course of Pur jab State in view of the principle of reciprocal basis, the Punjab Government had reconsidered the matter and decided to give recognition to the J. B. T. Course of Haryana State subject to the condition that J. B. T. Course of Haryana State is of tow years duration and this would be applicable in case of those candidates who had passed their J. B. T. Course from the Haryan State upto April 28, 1981. Annexure P/10 is the letter of dated September 17/20, 1985, from Director, Education Department, to the District Education Officer, clarifying that Arts and Crafts Diploma conducted by Director of Industrial Training, Haryana, was not recognised as equivalent to Punjab Arts and Crafts Course. The District Education Officer vide his letter dated January 24, 1989, addressed to the petitioner informed her that she could not be appointed as there was no vacancy. Her application was returned in original. The petitioner wrote back to the District Education Officer, Jalandhar, on June 11, 1990, that some posts were still lying vacant and she should be appointed. Annexure P/13 is the letter from the District Education Officer, Jalandhar, addressed to the Director, Education Department Punjab on the subject of appointment of the petitioner under priority scheme, seeking guidelines/clarification on the point whether the diploma of Industrial Training, Haryana was recognised by the Government of Punjab or not. Annexure P/14 is the application submitted by the petitioner to the Secretary, Education Department, on September 3,1990, requesting for appointment. Annexure P/15 is another request in this behalf. Annexure P/16 is the letter of Secretary to Government, Punjab, Education Department, dated May 9, 1960, on the subject of recognition of Basic Education Degree/ Diploma, other than those where the instructions awarding these degrees/diplomas are located. The relevant portion is reproduced below :

(3.) IF Annexure P/16, extract of which has been reproduced above, is read closely, the position has been made abundantly clear that the State of Punjab had taken the decision after consulting the Punjab Public Service Commission that the similar Diplomas granted by other State Governments or any Institutions situated within the jurisdiction of that State Government would be equivalent to Junior Basic Teachers Training Course of the Punjab Education Department if two conditions are fulfilled i. e. such course was of two years training and the Diplomas were awarded by the Institutions recognised by the Government. If these instructions had been brought to the notice of the Division Bench, the decision would have been different and the judgment relied upon could not be distinguished.