http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  694-695 of 2005

PETITIONER: State of Rajasthan & Anr.                                      

RESPONDENT: Kulwant Kaur                                                   

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/04/2006

BENCH: S.B. Sinha & P.P. Naolekar

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

S.B. SINHA, J :                  The State of Rajasthan enacted Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti & Zila  Parishad Act, 1959 (’the Act’, for short).  The Respondent was appointed as  a Grade-III teacher on 25.11.1983 by the Panchayat Samiti, Padampur.  The  terms and conditions of her appointment were governed by Rajasthan  Panchayat Samitis & Zila Parishad Service Rules, 1959 (’the Rules’, for  short).  The Schedule appended to the said Rules lay down the conditions for  appointment, including basic educational qualification, as also the eligibility  criteria therefor which read as under:

S.No. Name of  the Post  and pay  scale Source of  Recruitment  with percentage _____________ Direct     By Recruit-  pro       ment       motion   Qualifica- tion and  experience  for direct  recruit- ment   

    Promotion   _____________ Post       Qualifi- from      cation/  which    Expe- promo-   rience  tion         for  will be    promo-  consi-     tion dered      Remarks 5. Primary

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

School  Teacher 100%           - Senior  Secondary  with basis  STC  course            -             -  Candidates who  possessed Secon-  dary or Hr. Seco-  ndary examina- tion prior to 1990  shall also be  eligible

The minimum qualification required for the post of Primary School  Teacher was the Matriculation and Basic Short Training Certificate (BSTC)  course.  The services of the Respondent were terminated in the year 1984  but she was reappointed on a temporary basis.  The Director, Primary and  Secondary Education issued a circular directing termination of the services  of temporary teachers who possessed only diploma in Tailoring.  The  services of the Respondent pursuant to the said circular had also been  terminated, relying on the said circular by the appellant herein, by an order  dated 11.5.1987.  She filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court  wherein an order of stay was passed.  She was allowed to continue in service  in view of the said order of stay.  The question as to whether, having regard  to the fact that the authorities of the State Government themselves had not  been sending the Assistant Teachers for training, some directions were  issued by the High Court to the effect that the services of such teachers  should not be terminated, but, they should be sent for obtaining the requisite  training.  

The question as to whether the National Training Certificate in  Tailoring or any other craft should be treated to be equivalent to Short  Training Certificate or not, came up for consideration of this Court in State  of Rajasthan vs. Shyam Lal Joshi & Ors. [(1994) 1 SCC 593], wherein the  relevant rule, which is as under, was noticed:

       "Secondary with Basic School Training Certificate  (BSTC) or a training qualification recognized as  equivalent to BSTC by State Government."

This Court held: "\005\005 A distinction has to be drawn between a general  teacher who has received complete training and is in a  position to teach all the subjects and a teacher who has  received training in a particular craft and can, therefore,  properly teach that particular craft only. Under the  relevant rules for appointment to the post of Primary  School Teacher it is necessary to have BSTC or a  training qualification recognised as equivalent to BSTC  by the State Government. The BSTC course is a two  years’ training course wherein the training is given in  various subjects. The NTC is granted by the ITI after a  course of training in a particular craft. By order dated  November 8, 1979, the State Government recognised the  NTC given by ITI for teaching vocational subjects in  Secondary Schools in certain specified crafts, namely,  wood work, tailoring, leather work and spinning &  weaving. This recognition is limited to teaching the  aforesaid vocational subjects only. In the circular dated  August 6, 1984, reference has been made to the order

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

dated December 11, 1974, whereby certificates of  Industrial Examinations of the Rajasthan Government  were recognised as equivalent to Arts and Handicraft  Examinations of Vidya Bhawan, Udaipur, and it was  directed that since the Handicraft Diploma Certificates of  Vidya Bhawan have been recognised as equivalent to  basic training (BSTC) by the Education Department, the  Industrial Examination of the State Government has also  been treated as equivalent to BSTC. The said circular  does not run counter to the limited nature of recognition  granted to NTC by order dated November 8, 1979. This  was clarified by circular dated January 7, 1985 wherein it  has been stated that the NTC holders have been given  recognition to teach industrial subjects in the secondary  schools for conferring NTC and that candidates holding  NTC are not eligible for the post of teachers in the  Panchayat Samities. The last circular dated November 6,  1985 only gives effect to the directions contained in the  earlier circular dated January 7, 1985. It would thus  appear that limited recognition was given to NTC by  order dated November 8, 1979 in the matter of teaching  vocational subjects of the certificate and the subsequent  circulars dated August 6, 1984, January 7, 1985 and  November 6, 1985 do not detract from that position. The  circular dated August 6, 1984 cannot be construed as  giving a fresh recognition to NTC and, therefore, the  question of withdrawal of recognition granted earlier by  the subsequent circulars dated January 7, 1985 and  November 6, 1985 does not arise. The principle of  promissory estoppel is not attracted and the decision of  this Court in Suresh Pal v. State of Haryana1 on which  reliance has been placed by the High Court, also has no  application. In view of the limited recognition that has been  granted to NTCs the holders of NTCs cannot claim  appointment as general teachers and can only be  appointed to the post of craft teachers in the craft for  which they hold the NTC. For teaching subjects other  than the craft for which they hold the NTC the position of  the holder of NTC is no different from that of an  untrained teacher. The need for appointment of properly  trained teachers has been emphasised by this Court in  Andhra Kesari Educational Society v. Director of School  Education2 wherein it has been observed: (SCC p. 399,  para 20) "It is, therefore, needless to state that  teachers should be subjected to rigorous  training with rigid scrutiny of efficiency. It  has greater relevance to the needs of the day.  The ill-trained or sub-standard teachers  would be detrimental to our educational  system; if not a punishment on our  children.""

In view of the said decision of this Court, the services of all the  teachers who did not possess the requisite qualification were directed to be  terminated by an order dated 7.4.1994.  It is not clear as to whether any  order to that effect was served on the Respondent.  Only on 31.5.1995 an  order of termination was served on her.  She again filed a writ petition,  which was marked as W.P. No.2973/94 before the High Court challenging  the said order of termination.  An interim order of stay was passed therein.   Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said interim order of stay, she continued  in service.  

Ultimately both her writ petitions, namely, W.P.Nos.2973/94 and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

1383/87 were dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court by an  order dated 22.8.1995.  Letters Patent Appeals were preferred thereagainst  by the Respondent No.1 and by reason of the impugned judgment, the  Division Bench of the High Court directed:

"For the foregoing circumstances, we are of the opinion  that the appellant is entitled to a direction as made in  Neera Joshi’s case, Loomb Singh’s case.  We therefore,  quash the order of termination and direct the Government  to determine whether the qualifications possessed by the  appellant entitles her to be continued in service and in the  event of coming to the conclusion that the appellant does  not possess the requisite qualification, to give her training  as had been done in other cases and on her successful  completion of the training, regularize her services.  We  direct the State Government to determine Appellant’s  qualification with a period of two months from the date  of receipt of this judgment and proceed further in  accordance with law.

The High Court noticed that the appointments have been given to the  teachers on contract basis but they did not acquire the qualification in the  meantime.  The High Court furthermore noticed that the State has issued a  circular on 30.8.2000 in relation to the teachers who underwent the service  training and acquired qualification as vocational teachers for the purpose of  grant of promotion.

The High Court, however, did not notice that Rules of 1959 were  substituted by Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, wherein the  educational qualification of temporary teacher was laid down in the  following terms:

S.  No. Name of  the Post  and pay  scale Source of  Recruitment  with  percentage ___________ Direct     By Recruit-  pro-      ment       mo-                tion   Qualifica-tion and  experience for direct  recruit-ment   

    Promotion   _____________ Post      Qualifi- From     cation/  Which   Expe- Promo-  rience  tion will  for  be con-   pro   sidered   motion Rema- rks

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

5. Primary  School  Teacher 100% (i) Senior Secondary under  New (10+2) Scheme or  Higher Secondary under  Old Scheme from Rajas- than Board of Secondary  Education or equivalent.  (ii) B.S.T.C. Course.               

It is beyond any controversy that the Respondent herein did not pass  the Senior Secondary Examination.  She was, therefore, asked to enhance  her qualification by a letter dated 4.12.2003 stating:

"\005\005Your aforementioned examination result has been  declared on the condition that result of second year  Teachers Training (Correspondence Course will not be  declared until you pass the minimum qualification of  Higher Secondary Examination or its equivalent  examination.

However, during the pendency of this special leave petition, she was  directed to undergo training and it is not disputed that she had completed the  same.

Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the  appellant would submit that in view of the decision in Shyam Lal Joshi  (supra) and further more, having regard to the amendments made in the  Rules within the year 1996, the Respondent being not possessed of the  essential educational qualification, the impugned judgment cannot be  sustained.

Mr. Manu Mridul, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the  Respondent, on the other hand, would submit that in equity her services  should not be directed to be terminated as she had been continuing therein  pursuant to the interim orders passed by the High Court for a long time.  It  was also submitted that that there are large number of teachers who have  been allowed to continue in service despite the fact that they were similarly  situated.

The services of the Respondent had been terminated on the ground  that she lacked essential educational qualification.  The High Court passed  an interim order in her favour.  Such orders were being passed on the ground  that the State had been making discrimination amongst the teachers in the  matter of sending them for obtaining training; such in-service training being  permissible.  However, we are not concerned with such a situation in this  case.

The Respondent herein did not possess the requisite qualification.   Only because the order of termination of service of Respondent was directed  to be stayed and in obedience of the interim orders passed by the High  Court, she was allowed to continue in services, the same, in our opinion, can  not lead to the conclusion that she had been validly holding the post or the  order of termination was bad in law.  After Shyam Lal Joshi (supra), it is  not disputed that the teachers were required to possess a Short Training  Certificate.  As the respondent did not possess such essential qualification,  she has no legal right to continue in service.  The orders of termination  passed, both in 1987 and 1994, which were the subject matter of the Writ  Petition No.1383/87 (being against the order dated 11.5.87) and Writ

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

Petition No.2973/94 (being against the order dated 31.5.1994), cannot, thus,  be held to be bad in law.   

In Mohd. Sartaj & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [2006 (1) SCALE  265], this Court clearly held that possession of an essential educational  qualification was mandatory for obtaining the right to continue in the post.   A legal right in this behalf cannot be said to be derived by an employee only  because an interim order was passed by the High Court.     Actus Curiae neminem gravabit is a well known maxim.  The orders  passed by the appellant could not, thus, have been directed to be set aside by  the High Court on the grounds stated therein.  The High Court did not arrive  at a finding that the Respondent was possessed of basic essential  qualification, both as regard general education as well as the training.   

It is also not a case where equity is in favour of the Respondent.  Only  because an interim order was passed in favour of the Respondent, the same  would not mean that despite the fact that she did not possess requisite  qualifications, her services would be allowed to continue.  Even the old  Rules were not applicable in her case.  The matter would have been different  had she acquired the requisite qualification prior to issuance of order of  termination in 1994.  Admittedly, she had not by then completed her  training.  Even at that point of time, she was not possessed of the Short  Training Certificate.  Her services had, thus, rightly been terminated and in  that view of the matter, purported acquisition of qualification by her in 1996  would be of no significance.

For the reasons afore-mentioned, the impugned judgments cannot be  sustained, the same are set aside.  The appeals are allowed.   

No costs.