SMT. ANITA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 15599, 2344 and 9791 of 2006 as common question of law and facts are involved. However, facts are being taken from C.W.P. No. 15599 of 2006. The petitioners have approached this Court by filing aforementioned petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer for quashing orders passed by the District Education Officer (Secondary Education), Nawanshahr, in their respective cases thereby refusing to grant approval to their appointments against grant -in -aid posts of JBT/ETT teachers. A direction has also been sought to respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to grant approval to them and allow them to continue as JBT/ETT teachers. A further direction has been sought for releasing of their full pay for the period they have worked from the date of their joining till the date of release of their salary as per the scale admissible to the grant -in -aid JBT/ETT teachers. Facts are not in dispute. At the instance of Doaba Arya Senior Secondary School, Nawanshahr (for brevity, 'the respondent School') advertisements were published in two English dailies - 'The Indian Express' and 'The Tribune' and twice in the Hindi Daily 'Punjab Kesri' on 25.5.2002 and 27.5.2002 inviting applications for six vacant JBT/ETT posts. The petitioners being eligible and qualified with B.A., B.Ed. and M.A. in respective subjects, applied for the post. They were called for interview on 28.6.2002. The Selection Sub -Committee comprising of five members, constituted in accordance with Rule 7(1) of the Punjab Privately -Managed Recognised Schools Employees (Security of Service) Rules, 1981 (for brevity, 'the 1981 Rules'), interviewed the petitioner on 28.6.2002. Against all the posts of JBT/ETT the petitioners including other candidates appeared before the Selection Sub -Committee for interview which continued for two days on 27.6.2002 and 28.6.2002. The Selection Sub -Committee recommended the names of the petitioners for the posts of JBT in the scale of Rs. 4550 -7220. The recommendation of the Selection Sub -Committee was later on confirmed by the Managing Committee of the respondent School in its meeting held on 28.6.2002. Accordingly, the selection and appointment of the JBT teachers including that of all the petitioners attained finality and they were issued appointment letters. According to the terms and conditions of the appointment letters they were appointed against an advertised post of JBT teachers and their service conditions were to be governed by the 1981 Rules. They were to be paid salary in accordance with the pay scale of the Government teachers, subject to grant of approval to their appointment by the D.P.I. (S). The petitioners were asked to execute an agreement with the school authorities that they would not make a higher claim to salary except the one admissible to JBT teacher merely because they possessed higher qualifications. All of them had duly executed the agreement and then joined their duties (P -6 & P -6/A). They continued to work with sincerity.

(2.) The case of the petitioners for the purposes of grant of approval and releasing of 95% of grant -in -aid against the posts held by them was sent to the District Education Officer in July 2002 itself but it was kept pending. Since a considerable time had lapsed without granting approval, the petitioner and other teachers (including petitioners in C.W.P. Nos. 2344 and 9791 of 2006) approached this Court by filing C.W.P. No. 6789 of 2004 for directing the respondents to grant approval to their appointment and other teachers against the aided posts of JBT teachers against which they were appointed in the respondent School. The aforementioned writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.4.2004 (P -8). It was directed by the Division Bench that the justice demand notice served by the petitioners be decided by the competent authority within two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, by passing a speaking order. It was further directed that the petitioners be granted opportunity of being heard as provided under the provisions of law and the order so passed be communicated to them accordingly. It was further ordered that if any relief is found grantable to the petitioners, the same was to be passed on to them accordingly within one month thereafter. The District Education Officer -respondent No. 3 eventually vide order dated 4.4.2006, declined to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner as JBT teacher for the purposes of releasing 95% grant -in -aid against the aided post (P -13). Respondent No. 3 in his order dated 4.4.2006 (P -13) has put forward numerous pleas to decline approval to the case of the petitioner. After recording that the appointment to an aided post for the purposes of granting 95% grant -in -aid has to be examined under the 1981 Rules, it has been stated that the advertisements were not in accordance with Rule 7(1) of the 1981 Rules and it violated the instructions dated 20.12.1995 (R -2) and 15.10.1997 (R -3). It has also been pointed out that the advertisement was required to be detailed one and should have been in two parts. In the first part it should have been mentioned that the candidates having JBT/ETT or equivalent qualifications were to be considered for appointment. If such candidates were not to be available then in second part it was required to be stated that only then Graduate/Post Graduate with B.Ed. were to be considered for the post and they were to be given JBT pay scale. The advertisement did not answer the aforementioned description and, therefore, it violated the tenor of Rule 7(1) of the 1981 Rules and the instructions dated 20.12.1995 and 15.10.1997 (R -2 & R -3). The order further discloses that the respondent School through its Managing Committee had committed gross irregularities in the selection process to various appointments made against the above said advertisements and, therefore, the appointments were not to be approved. However, nothing has been substantiated as to what irregularities or illegalities have been committed in the selection process. Then a reference has been made to a letter dated 17.1.2003, which is alleged to have pointed out the details of irregularities but the same has not been brought on record.

(3.) At this stage it is apposite to mention that one Sangha Gurbaksh Kaur had filed C.W.P. No. 13979 of 2002 in this Court, wherein the advertisement, selection process and appointment of Smt. Meenakshi Sidana, who was selected and appointed as JBT (Science) as a result of same selection in the respondent School, was challenged. That writ petition was dismissed on 16.2.2004 (P -19) by a Division Bench of this Court. Even the Special Leave Petition against the order dated 16.2.2004 (P -19), passed by the Division Bench has been dismissed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court on 28.11.2005 (P -20). The order of the Division Bench challenging the selection and appointment of Smt. Meenakshi Sidana, who was respondent No. 4 therein (C.W.P. No. 13979 of 2002) deserves to be extracted in extenso and the same reads as under: