PADMA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a memorandum dated July 20, 1983, the Director of Education, Himachal Pradesh, outlined a Scheme for one year Junior Basic Training Condensed Course for Nursery qualified candidates of the State. This Scheme was communicated through a letter of July 23, 1983 from the office of the District Education Officer, Bilaspur (HP) to the Headmasters and Heads of some institutions mentioned in the letter. The Scheme contained in the memorandum mentioned several conditions, after giving out the eligibility, the age limit and the authorities and the criteria of selection for admission to the Course. Condition No.3, amongst those mentioned at the end of the memorandum, said that : - "After successful completion of training, employment will be provided to the candidates on their turn subject to availability of posts and they shall have no claim for appointment as a matter of right for recruitment. They shall have to appear before the prescribed selection board in case their names are sponsored by the Employment Exchanges. The cost of the training will have to be borne by the candidates "

(2.) Padma Sharma and 53 other petitioners came to this Court on September 19, 1987, seeking a direction that they be also admitted to one year Junior Basic Training Condensed on the basis of their qualification as diploma holders in Nursery and Infant Training Course. They said that prior to the year 1983 the Nursery trained teachers were all admitted to the aforesaid J.B.T. Course on the basis of being qualified in the Nursery Teachers Training Course but, thereafter, the petitioners, who had qualified in the Nursery Training Session 1983 -84, had not been admitted to the Course. The writ petition came up before a Division Bench on September 24, 1987, for preliminary hearing. Thereafter, some orders were passed in it from time to time. However, an objection was taken on behalf of the respondents, namely, the State of Himachal Pradesh, its Director of Education and District Education Officers, by the learned Advocate General that the petition could not be entertained by this Court. It had to be transferred for disposal to the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal. The learned Advocate General brought to the notice of the Court the fact that some petitions of a similar nature had been sent by this Court for disposal to the State Administrative Tribunal. According to him, orders of that nature had been passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 1009 of 1985, Jai Singh v. State of H.P. and others, on January 2, 1987 ; Civil Writ Petition No. 442 of 1987, Krishan Kumar v. State, on November 2, 1987 and Civil Writ Petition No. 482 of 1987, Rita Sharma v. State on November 10,1987. It was, however, fairly stated that the orders were not of a speaking nature and no reasons were given by the Division Benches for taking the view that the cases were cognizable only by the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal.

(3.) The objection of the learned Advocate General was founded on the provisions of section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (briefly "the Act"). The objection did not find favour with the Division Bench before which it was taken in the present writ petition. The Bench felt that the subject matter of the present writ petition was not such which could be said to be covered by the provisions of section 15 of the Act. By an order dated June 8, 1988, the Bench directed that the papers of the case be placed before Honble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench for determination of the question "whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and consider petitions like the present, or the matter should go before the State Administrative Tribunal".