SATNAM KAUR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Education for all is the constitutional goal as well as social obligation of the State under Articles 45 and 46 of the Constitution of India. In order to fulfil its social obligations, the State has established a hierarchy of schools and an endeavour is made to engage qualified and competent persons to discharge the duties as Teachers. At one time, teaching was considered to be one of the most pious functions and Teachers were treated with reverence and respect in the society. However, with the advent of materialism the value - system has been considerably eroded and the profession of teaching has been much defamed on account of its commercialization. The mad race amongst the young generation to secure employment in Government service or its agencies has largely contributed to the mushroom growth of bogus institutions in the country which award fake degree/diplomas/certificates etc. Although the recent past has seen some realisation by the University Grants Commission (for short 'the U.G.C') and other such agencies to curb the menace of bogus institutions and fake degrees, threat to the system of education from these types of institutions has not receded. Rather their number has increased and a large number of cases have come to the Courts involving candidates who have secured employment on the basis of fake degrees/certificates. Sometimes, the Courts take strict view and refuse interference with the action taken by the Government to terminate the service of a person who has secured a job as a Teacher on the basis of fake degree/diploma/certificate, but at times this strict approach is tampered on account of consideration of humanism and the Courts give indulgence to the untrained Teachers by giving an opportunity to acquire the necessary training.

(2.) The present one is also a case in which the petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus for regularisation of her service and though we are not inclined to issue any such direction but long service rendered by the petitioner for a period of almost 9 years is a factor which has weighed with us to give one opportunity to the petitioner to acquire necessary qualification.

(3.) The petitioner who passed Giani examination from the Punjabi University (1979) and who claims that she has passed the Language Teachers examination (1982) from Gandhi Hindi Vidyapeeth, Prayag (U.P.) (for short 'the Institution'), came to be appointed as Punjab Teacher on ad hoc basis on 8.7.1986. She has claimed that in view of the policy decision contained in Annexure P.1 for regularisation of service of the ad hoc Class III employees, the respondents are duty-bound to pass an appropriate order for regularisation of her service and as the respondents have failed to carry out this duty, writ of mandamus be issued directing them to regularise the service of the petitioner. Petitioner's plea is that she fulfils the conditions specified in order Annexure P.1 but respondent No. 3 has declined regularisation of her service on a wholly erroneous ground that the examination passed by her from the 'Institution' is not recognised by the Government of Haryana. Petitioner has cited examples of a large number of similarly situated persons whose services have been regularised in terms of Annexure P.1.