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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1185 of 2007

PETITIONER: State of Punjab & Ors.                                  ...Appellants

RESPONDENT: Swaran Kaur and Ors.,                                   ...Respondents

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/03/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP (C ) Nos. 17661-17662/05)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

       Leave granted.

       Challenge in these appeals is to the orders passed by a  Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.  One of  them relates to the orders passed in the writ petition while  other one relates to the order passed in a review application.

       The basic question raised in the writ petition filed by the  respondents was whether the authorities were justified in  holding that they did not possess the requisite qualification for  appointment under the Punjab State Class IV Service Rules,  1963 (in short the ’Rules’). The State of Punjab had taken over  Chanan Devi Memorial girl High School, Saleem Tabri,  Ludhiana under certain conditions so far as the employment  of the members of staff concerned.  The Director Public  Instructions, Punjab wrote to the District Education Officer,  Chandigarh to ensure that all the members of the staff fulfil  the requisite qualification for recruitment to the relevant post.   Taking exception to the view expressed by the District  Education officer that the writ petitioners who are the  respondents in these appeals did not possess requisite  qualification.  Writ petition was filed stating that said view is  not sustainable in law.  Purportedly acting on a basis of a  concession made by learned Additional Advocate General, who  was appearing in the writ petition, the writ petition was  allowed.  The learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab  purportedly conceded that the rules were not applicable to the  case of the writ petitioner.  Subsequently a review petition was  filed stating that the concession was uncalled for because the  letter of the Director, Public Instructions, Punjab dated  17.11.1995 addressed to the District Education officer,  Chandigarh clearly stipulated the terms for continuance in  service.  The High Court dismissed the review application on  the ground that there was no prescription in the said letter  which would indicate applicability of the rules.

In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the  appellants submitted that the view of the High Court is clearly  untenable.  The Director, Public  Instructions had clearly  stipulated in the said letter that it was the duty of the District

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

Education Officer to ensure that all the members of the staff of  the taken over educational institute fulfil the requisite  qualification for recruitment to the relevant posts.  With  reference to the rules it is pointed out that certain educational  qualifications have been prescribed which the respondents did  not possess.

In response learned counsel for the respondents  submitted that more than a decade has since elapsed and it  would not be proper to interfere with the order of the High  Court which was based initially on concession and  subsequently on a finding recorded that there was no  prescription in the letter dated 17.11.1995 relating to  educational qualifications.

At this juncture it is necessary to take note of the  relevant provisions in the Rules which read as follows:

" Rule 5 : No person shall be recruited to the Service by  direct appointment unless he \026 (a)     produces certificates of character from two  responsible persons, not being his relatives, who  are well acquainted with him in private life; (b)     is not less than 16 years and not more than 35  years of age on the date of appointment; (c)     has not more than one wife living and in the case  of a woman, is not married to a person already  having a living wife: Provided that the Government may, if  satisfied that there are special grounds for  doing so, exempt any person from the  operation of this clause;  and (d)     possesses the requisite knowledge of the regional  languages and of English as may be prescribed  by the Government from time to time: Provided that the appointing authority may,  if it is of the opinion that the candidate is  otherwise fit to discharge his duties  satisfactorily, relax any of the qualification  prescribed under this clause."

Similarly in the letter of Director of Public Instructions it  was clearly stated as follows: "\005..it is the duty of the District Education  Officer to see that all of them fulfil the  requisite qualification for recruitment in the  relevant posts."

The effect of the afore-stated rule and the indication in  the letter has not been considered by the High Court.  In the  circumstances, we set aside the orders of the High Court and  remit the matter to it for fresh consideration.  We make it clear  that we have not expressed any opinion                                                                                                                                                                                                                     on the merits.  The High Court is requested to dispose of the  writ petition as early as practicable.

The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent without  any order as to costs.