PANCHAYAT SAMITI Vs. BHANWARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Special Appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 25 -9 -1980, whereby the writ petition filed by Smt. Bhanwari Devi was allowed.

(2.) FACTS in brief necessary for the determination of this appeal are that Smt. Bhanwari Devi (hereinafter called as the respondent) was appointed as Class IV servant in the Government Primary School, Umedabad. Thereafter she was transferred in Panchayat Samiti at Sayala as 'Sevika' somewhere in 1959 -60. The respondent while working as Sewika passed the 'Kovid' examination in 1966, conducted by Rastra Bhasha Prachar Samiti, Vardha. The Rajasthan Government vide its notification dated 31 -10 -1960 had recognised 'Kovid' examination as equivalent to inter examination for the purposes of employment. The respondent then moved an application for being promoted as a teacher. The Rajasthan Government vide Ex./4, dated 3 -1 -1970 issued a notification informing all the Panchayat Samitis that in persuance to an amendment made in Rule 29(1) in Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Rules, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1969), all the Class IV servants may be selected for promotion who fulfill the qualifications under Rule 11. It was further mentioned in the Notification, Ex./4 that in case such employees have been promoted on a temporary basis, then action maybe taken to confirm them. The respondent in pursuance to the aforesaid direction of the State Government was promoted on the post of teacher vide Ex./5, dated 22 12 -1974 passed by the Vikash Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Sayala. It was mentioned in the aforesaid order that the respondent had passed 'Kovid' which was equivalent to inter and she was appointed as Assistant teacher in Grade III at Primary School, Alasin with immediate effect. The respondent thereafter continued to work on the post of assistant teacher and her work was also appreciated by the Senior Deputy Inspector Schools, Jalore vide Ex./IO. That all of a sudden without prior notice an order was passed by the Vikash Adhikari vide Ex./7 dated 12 -4 -1979 reverting the respondent to the post of Class IV: The only reason for reverting the respondent as mentioned in Ex/7 was that the respondent did not fulfill the requisite qualifications.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge held that according to the Rules as applicable at the time of the promotion of the respondent, the minimum qualification required for direct recruitment in respect of women candidate was Matric or any other qualification equivalent to Matric as declared by the Education Department. As the respondent was having an educational qualification as 'Kovid' which was equivalent to inter, she was qualified for appointment to the post of Primary School Teacher. Learned Single Judge also held that the tenure of appointment vide Ex/5 lad to only one conclusion that the respondent was appointed as teacher on permanent basis. Learned Single Judge further found that according to Rules 20 and 21, it was the function of the District Establishment Committee to recommend the names for promotion and thereafter the Panchayat Samiti was to make the appointment in accordance with such recommendations. The Service Commission was no where in the picture. According to the learned Single Judge the respondent had alleged in the writ petition that she was promoted on the recommendation of the District Establishment Committee. However, vide Ex./3 she was probably promoted on the recommondation of the Samiti Prashasan Karopan Samiti, Jalore. The learned Single Judge, however observed that he has his own doubts whether the recommendations were not made by the District Establishment Committee. The learned Single Judge was thus of the opinion that the respondent was duly qualified to hold the post and the reason mentioned in Ex./7 for her reversion was wrong. Of course, if there was no recommendation for appointment of the respondent by the District Establishment Committee, the appointment has to be regularised by considering her case afresh for permanent appointment as she was duly qualified to hold the post, in view of the matter her permanent appointment may be irregular. In the result the learned Single Judge quashed the impugned order Ex./7. The respondent was ordered to be reposted on the post which she was holding and was held entitled to the salary of a teacher of Primary School, even for the period during which she was not holding the post, as a result of the impugned order Ex/7.