KULWANT KAUR Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, AMRITSAR, ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of C.W. 3469 of 1972, Kulwant Kaur v. District Education Officer, Amritsar and another and Janak Kumari v. District Education Officer, Amritsar and another, as the points of law and fact involved in these two petitions are identical.

(2.) Kulwant Kaur, petitioner in C.W. 3469 of 1972, was appointed as J.B.T. teacher in Government Primary School, Kot Raisada, Block Ajnala (II) District Amritsar, on August 22, 1966 on ad hoc basis and served in that school upto February 21, 1967, and thereafter from March 1, 1967 to March 4, 1967. Later on, she was appointed at J.B.T. teacher on ad hoc basis in various schools and her last assignment was in Government High School, Gago Mahal, there she worked from October 21, 1970 to April 12, 1971. The Subordinate Service Selection Board, Punjab issued an advertisement in the Tribune dated March 28, 1968, inviting applications from persons of 17 to 25 years for the posts of 2207 J.B.T. teachers (1250 men and 957 women) for Education Department. The applications were to reach the Board upto April 20, 1968. The petitioner applied for the post and was interviewed by the Board on July 3, 1968, but before an selection could be made, the Board was abolished. The selection was thereafter made by the Departmental Selection Committee on May 27, 1970. She was offered an appointment as J.B.T. teacher in Government High School, Gago Mahal, against a permanent vacancy in the grade of Rs. 125-300 and was asked to join the duty by April 30, 1971. The letter is dated April 7, 1971 which contains the conditions of service. According to this letter, she was appointed against the permanent vacancy on officiating basis. It was stated in the letter dated that the appointment was temporary but it was hoped that in due course it would become permanent. It was, however, made clear that no assurance could be held about its permanency. A further statement was made that she would be given an opportunity to become permanent like other candidates and in case of resignation or termination of service by the Department, each side would have to give one month's notice. In compliance with this letter of appointment, the petitioner joined her post in Government High School, Gago Mahal, on April 12, 1972. She took leave on half pay from October 5, 1972 to November 3, 1972. While at her home, she received letter No. E-72/63938-39 dated September 28, 1972 by registered post on October 7, 1972, informing her that her services were being terminated according to condition 3 of the appointment letter and the month's pay in lieu of the notice would be paid to her. On receipt of this letter, she filed the present petition on October 23, 1972, for quashing of the order terminating her services.

(3.) in the letter dated September 28, 1972, sent to the petitioner, no reason was stated for the termination of her services. In the return filed to the petition, the District Education Officer has stated that the petitioner was not a qualified J.B.T. teacher on April 20, 1968, which was the last date for the receipt of applications, and could, therefore, not be selected. This mistake was discovered later on and, therefore, her services were terminated. In her replication, the petitioner has stated that right from 1966 she had been treated as a J.B.T. teacher when she was appointed on ad hoc basis in various schools. During her service, she was allowed five yearly increments in spite of ad hoc appointments and, therefore, there was no mistake committed by the Selection Committee while selecting her for the post of J.B.T. teacher. She had passed one year's Basic Teachers Certificate Course from Himachal Pradesh and thereafter passed the J.B.T. Examination of the Punjab Education Department held in June, 1968. The Director of Public Instruction, Punjab, issued to her the Junior Basic Teachers Certificate dated July 15, 1968. The certificate of one year's Basic Teachers Course from HImachal Pradesh was not recognised by the Punjab Education Department as a qualification of a J.B.T. teacher and, therefore, she was admittedly not a qualified J.B.T. teacher on April 20, 1968, but in June/July, 1968, she became a qualified J.B.T. teacher. She was selected as such in May, 1970, when she admittedly possessed the requisite qualification and was issued the appointment letter dated in April, 1971. In these circumstances, the respondents are estopped from asserting that the petitioner was not a qualified J.B.T. teacher and, therefore, was not entitled to be appointed as such. She had been selected by the Departmental Selection Committee and the District Education Officer had no right or jurisdiction to call in question that the selection or set it aside. By the time her services were terminated, she had become overage for entry into Government service which disabled her from getting Government service thereafter. She was not to blame for he selection by the Departmental Selection Committee. In fact, in her appointment letter, she was given a hope that in due course her temporary appointment would become permanent and she would be given an opportunity to become permanent. No fault was found with her work and conduct during the period of her service and instead of giving her an opportunity to become permanent, her services were terminated on a ground which was not available on the date of termination of service. On that date, she was admittedly a qualified J.B.T. teacher. In the interest of fair-play, her service could not and should not have been terminated on the ground that she was not a qualified J.B.T. teacher on April 20, 1968, the last date for making application in accordance with the advertisement dated March 28, 1968. Her discharge from service on that ground cannot, therefore, be sustained.