SAUDAMINI PRABHA Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an M.A. in Hindi and graduate with Sanskrit as one of her elective subjects and has also passed the Prabhakar and Oriental Training Examination. On the basis of these qualifications she was appointed a Hindi Teacher, on temporary basis, by the District Education Officer vide letter dated 14th July, 1976 Annexure P-1 to the petition. She was later on adjusted as a Sanskrit teacher by the District Education Officer, Sangrur in the same School as she was also qualified to hold the said appointment as well. She was thereafter transferred to Government Girls High School Barnala, as a Sanskrit teacher vide order dated 14th Aug., 1977. It has been averred that from the year 1976 onwards till the filing of the writ petition in the year 1982 the petitioner had been working meritoriously and without any break on the post of Sanskrit teacher. On 28th Oct., 1980 the State Government issued a policy letter deciding to regularise the services of all those employees who had been working on an ad-hoc basis and had completed a minimum period of one year service on 30.9.1980. A copy of this decision has been appended as Annexure P-3 to the petition. It has been ecphasised that vide Annexure P-3 it had also been clarified that those employees who had put in the requisite period of satisfactory service but did not fulfil the prescribed condition with regard to qualifications, age or mode of their initial recruitment should also be considered for being made regular in relaxation of these conditions. It appears that the case of the petitioner for regularisation of her services was also forwarded to the Department, but was rejected. This had led to the filing of the present petition. The stand of the petitioner in the writ petition is that she was fully qualified for the post and it was on that basis that she had been allowed to continue as a Sanskrit teacher without any break in service from 1976 to 1982. Attention has also been focussed on the fact that the services of teachers having identical qualifications had already been regularised and these qualifications had been held to be valid for appointment to the post in question by the High Court as well as by the apex Court.

(2.) In the written statement filed by the respondents the stand taken is that the petitioner did not fulfil the requisite qualification for the post of Sanskrit teacher as she did not possess the Shastri qualification.

(3.) At the time of motion hearing of the petition on 26th Oct., 1982 status quo regarding services of the petitioner was ordered and when the writ petition was ultimately admitted on 8th March, 1983, stay was directed to be continued. It appears that by virtue of the aforesaid order the petitioner is still in service, although her services have not been regularised.