RAMESH RANI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of three civil writ petitions 10620 of 1993, 13880 and 19044 of 1995 in which common question of yaw and fact arise and they were ordered to be Board together. Counsel for the parties are agreed that the decision in civil writ petition 10620 of 1993 will govern the other two petitions as well. For the sake of convenience facts are being taken from this case.

(2.) Ramesh Rani petitioner after passing the Matriculation examination has passed Shastri examination from Panjabi University, Patiala and thereafter she also passed the Prabhakar examination from the same University in December, 1984. She then took the Shiksha. Shastri examination in the year sicfrom Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, New Delhi and passed the same in second division. She was appointed a Sanskrit teacher in G.N. Arya High School, Tapa District Sangrur from 11.1.1988 to 31.3.1989 and her appointment was approved by the Education Department and the necessary grant-in-aid released for the post filled up by her. It may be mentioned that G.N. Arya High School is a government aided institution receiving 95% grant-in-aid from the State Government. She was again appointed a Sanskrit teacher in S.N. Arya High School, Tapa District Sangrur from 1.10.1991 to 31.8.1992 against a leave vacancy. Respondents 1 to 3 did not grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner and, therefore, no grant-in- aid was given to the school against the post held by the petitioner. She made representation to the authorities and then filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the action of the respondents in not granting the approval to her appointment.

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 it is pleaded that the petitioner is not qualified for the post of a Sanskrit teacher. According to the respondents Sanskrit teacher should have passed the examination of BA. with Sanskrit as an elective subject and B.Ed with Sanskrit as a teaching subject. As per the stand taken in the written statement the petitioner has not passed the examination of Shastri which is not equivalent to full B.A. It is also the case of the respondents that she does not possess the qualification of B.A. B.Ed as required for the appointment of Sanskrit teacher. It is pleaded as a preliminary objection that the petitioner executed an agreement with the management of the school and consented to her services being terminated at any time in case approval for her appointment as a Sanskrit teacher was not accorded by the Education Department.