http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SMT. SANTOSH YADAV

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/05/1996

BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. THOMAS K.T. (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (5)   641        1996 SCALE  (4)442

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      The High  Court dismissed  the  writ  petition  of  the appellant in limine.      The appellant  had put  to challenge  order dated 27-3- 1990 (Annexure-H)  whereby she  was conveyed  by the  School authorities under whom she was working as a Hindi Teachress, that since  she had  secured her Teacher’s Training from the Secondary Education  Board, U.P.,  Bareilly, which  was  not recognized by the Haryana Government, she had to be relieved from her  duties thenceforth  with immediate  effect. By one stroke of pen, her long durated service spanning from 21-10- 1980 onwards,  which began  on six  monthly basis, (ignoring small gaps here and there) till the year 1990 was wiped out; whereas undeniably  other Teachers similarly situated on six months’ basis, had been able to mature as permanent teachers entitled to continue in service. The lone disquieting factor was that  the appellant had a diploma which did not have the approval  of  the  Haryana  Government  and  yet  in  laxity teachers had  been appointed,  in order  to draw work out of them, to meet the State’s educational needs.      It  was  for  the  first  time  on  7-7-1981  (copy  of instruction  placed   on  file)   that  the  Directorate  of Education, Haryana  woke up  from its  slumber informing all concerned that  it had  come to the notice of the Department that persons  who  had  obtained  their  teacher’s  training diploma/certificate from  other States  were being recruited or appointed  and it  need be  notified that  the method was irregular. It  was therefore  desired that  in  future  only those persons  shall be  recruited who  have obtained  their teachers’   training    diploma/certificate   from   Haryana Education Department. All concerned were further required to strictly adhere  to these instructions and also to bring all these to  the notice of all the appointing authorities under the jurisdiction of the Government as well as non-government (but recognised) institutions for strict compliance.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    It is  on the  basis of the aforesaid letter dated 7-7- 1981 that services of the appellant were terminated on 27-7- 1990.      It is  not denied  that  the  appellant  was  taken  in service  on   the  basis   of  the  diploma/certificate  she possessed, having  obtained it  from the Secondary Education Board, U.P.,  Bareilly and  that her  six months’ terms were kept renewed  from time  to time,  ignoring  small  gaps  in between, as  was the  pattern. Therefore we fail to see that when she  was acceptable  in 1980  and her  terms were  kept renewed from  time to  time uptil  22-5-1982,  and  onwards, whereafter she was confirmed in the year 1984, how could her services be  terminated in  the  year  1990,  when  she  had attained regularity  in service.  It is  significant to note that the  letter dated  7-7-1981 was  itself watered down on 22-7-1981 (Annexure  A) clarifying  that the  ban imposed on recruitment   of    persons   who    had   obtained    their diplomas/certificates  from   non-recognised   institutions, would not  apply to  those who  were working  as teachers on stop-gap/adhoc/six months’  basis before the summer vacation of 1981. Concededly, the appellant occupied that position as she was  working on six monthly basis immediately before the summer vacation of 1991. Thus, on account of such relaxation being available  for her and she having earned regularity in her service,  it was  wholly wrong and arbitrary on the part of the  Education Department and the School to have deprived her of  her job.  Thus, the  impugned order  dated 27-3-1990 (Annexure H)  relieving the  appellant from  her  duties  as Hindi Teachress  with immediate  effect, is quashed, putting her back  to position  with back  wages  and  regularity  of service, including other service benefits such as seniority, promotion, increments  etc. as  would have normally been due to her.      The appeal thus stands allowed in these terms.