IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2307 of 2004 Date of decision: 23rd September, 2010 Ravinder Kumar (dead) through LR(s) … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, Dy. Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.5. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present writ petition was filed by Ravinder Kumar, Sanskrit Teacher, A.S. Senior Secondary School, Khanna, who, during the pendency of the petition, has expired and now it is being represented by his widow/legal representative-Shashi Sharma. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the impugned order dated 17th January, 2004 (Annexure P-15), whereby the services of Ravinder Kumar Sharma, Sanskrit Teacher were terminated from A.S. Senior Secondary School, Khanna with immediate effect. It is not disputed that the petitioner was appointed as a Sanskrit Teacher with effect from 4th May, 1992. The petitioner had applied in pursuance of an advertisement issued by respondent No.5-A.S. Senior Secondary School, Khanna published in The Tribune on 28th March, 1992. He appeared in the interview and was duly selected by the selection committee on 25th Civil Writ Petition No.2307 of 2004 April, 1992. An appointment letter (Annexure P-6) was issued in favour of the petitioner and he joined the respondent-School on 4th May, 1992 as a Sanskrit Teacher in the grade of Rs.1640-2925. Management of the respondent-School sent the case of the petitioner to Circle Education Officer, Patiala Circle, Nabha for approval, as 95 per cent of salary of the petitioner was to be paid by the State under the grant-in-aid Rules. However, no such approval was granted, as the qualification and eligibility of the petitioner were questioned by the office of Director Public Instructions, Punjab-respondent No.2. In the written statement filed to the writ petition, it is stated that vide Government instructions dated 30th November, 1990 (Annexure P-8), the Government had prescribed B.A. with the concerned subject of teaching as a compulsory subject along with passing of B.Ed. examination. Admittedly, the rules prescribing the essential qualification have not been amended and it is not disputed that the Government instructions cannot supersede the rules. As per The Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Schools Employees (Security of Service) Act, 1979, the qualification prescribed for a Sanskrit Teacher is Matric, Shastri with O.T. As per the written statement, the approval was not granted, as the petitioner did not possess the qualification of B.A. Para 4 of the written statement reads as under: “4. The qualification possessed by the petitioner is admitted as a matter of record. However, examination of Shashtri is not equivalent to B.A. whereas w.e.f. 30.11.1990. Qualification for the post of Language teacher in Panjab is B.A. The petitioner was appointed as teacher with respondent No.5 on 6.5.1992.” The petitioner possessed qualification of Matric, Shastri and Shiksha Shastri. He had obtained the qualification of Shiksha Shastri 2 Civil Writ Petition No.2307 of 2004 from the Rastriya Sanskrit Sansthan, New Delhi. Since the rules have not prescribed passing of B.A. examination, Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab has stated that even though the petitioner had not qualified the B.A. examination, it was also essential that he should have possessed the qualification of O.T., i.e. specialized expertise of a teacher having Oriental Training. This alternative argument advanced by counsel for the State is also bound to fail, as a Division Bench of this Court in ‘Shyam Sunder & another v. State of Punjab and others’ Civil Writ Petition No.810 of 1983 decided on 11th March, 1983, has held that the degree of Shiksha Shastri, if not better, is equivalent to the Oriental Training. It will be apposite here to extensively quote from the judgment rendered in Shyam Sunder’s case (supra), which reads as follows: “In reply to a notice of motion issued by this Court, written statement has been filed by Smt.Prem Jindal, Deputy Director Books, Office of the Director of Public Instructions, Punjab on behalf of the respondents. It is mentioned therein that the appointments of the petitioners were not approved because both the petitioners did not fulfill the conditions of qualifications prescribed for the posts of Hindi and Sanskrit Teachers, respectively, as per serial numbers 14 and 15 of the appendix to rule 6 of the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised School Employees (Security of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short ‘the Rules’). The qualifications for the posts of Hindi Teacher are Matric, Prabhakar (Hons. in Hindi) O.T. and for the post Sanskrit Teacher, Matriculation Examination, Shastri with Oriental Training (O.T.), whereas the qualifications of Petitioner No.1 are Matric, Shastri and Shiksha Shastri and Petitioner No.2 is Matriculate and passed Shastri and Shiksha Shastri Examinations. None of them is having Oriental Training. It is admitted that degree of Shiksha Shastri is equivalent to the degree of Bachelor of Education. However, it is averred that Shiksha Shastri is not equivalent to Oriental Training. Since the petitioners have not 3 Civil Writ Petition No.2307 of 2004 undergone a specialized training for language, they could not do justice to the students. The Oriental Training Course is admittedly a diploma in language teaching. Shiksha Shastri is a degree of Bachelor in Art in teaching of different subjects including languages like Sanskrit and Hindi. The duration of the degree course is much longer than that of the diploma. A degree in Shiksha Shastri teaching cannot be held to be in any way inferior to a mere diploma in the subject of language teaching. This very point came up for consideration in Civil Writ Petition No.1676 of 1982, decided on 3rd December, 1982. The petitioner in that case had possessed the degree of Shiksha Shastri. The State of Haryana did not accept his candidature on the ground that he did not possess diploma in Oriental Training (O.T.), as required by the departmental rules in that case. This objection was over-ruled and it was held: ‘They have contended that they possess the basic qualification of Shastri. The requirement of the possession of the second qualification is prescribed to ensure that a teacher in Sanskrit should be well-versed in the art of teaching also. The Course of Oriental Training is a Diploma in the art of teaching language. A Bachelor of Education is instructed in the art of teaching in Languages, Humanities and Sciences etc. It cannot be said that a person who has done graduation in the art of teaching will not be proficient in teaching a language like Sanskrit. The petitioners are already graduates in Sanskrit. The State of Haryana has already accepted the degree of Shiksha Shastri to be equivalent to Bachelor of Education. The State has not given the details of the curricula and syllabi for both the courses of Oriental Training and Shiksha Shastri in support of the assertion that they are two different types of courses. The respondents have not specifically controverted the assertion of the petitioners in sub-para (1) of 4 Civil Writ Petition No.2307 of 2004 page 9 – that Shiksha Shastri is a degree Course in Sanskrit Teaching. Oriental Training is admittedly a Diploma in Language (Sanskrit) Teaching. A degree in Sanskrit Teaching cannot be held to be in any way inferior to a Diploma in that subject ……..’ This very point had earlier arisen in Punjab itself. A teacher who was a Graduate and a Bachelor of Education had passed Prabhakar Examination was appointed as a Hindi Teacher on ad-hoc basis. He was not being regularized on the plea that he did not possess the minimum educational qualification. He had not passed the Oriental Training Course. This objection of the State was overruled and it was held in Narinder Kumar, Hindi Teacher v. The State of Punjab and others, 1981 (1) SLR 575, that the teacher had higher qualifications and should not be denied regularization on that basis. It may be mentioned that in the course of Shiksha Shastri training is imparted to the teachers for teaching Hindi to the students. In these circumstances, we accept this petition and hold that the petitioners are qualified to teach Hindi and Sanskrit in terms of the rules. They are fully qualified to be appointed as teachers in these two languages. The respondents are directed to approve the appointments of the teachers, if they are otherwise eligible, expeditiously.” Once the degree of Shiksha Shastri is held to be equivalent to that of Oriental Training, the petitioner at the relevant time possessed all the necessary qualification, i.e. Matric, Shastri and Shiksha Shastri prescribed by the rules. Thus, the action of the respondent-State not to grant approval is not tenable and is to be rejected. If that is so, as a necessary consequence, the order (Annexure P-15), whereby services of the petitioner were dispensed with, is also to be quashed. The petitioner possessed the qualification of Matric, Shastri and Shiksha Shastri, which 5 Civil Writ Petition No.2307 of 2004 is equivalent to the Oriental Training and therefore, there was no justification for the State not to approve the appointment of the petitioner, which was made by a duly constituted selection committee. Accordingly, the present petition is accepted and the order dated 8th January, 1993 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Circle Education Officer, Patiala Circle, Nabha along with the order dated 28th April, 1994 (Annexure P-12) passed by the appellate authority and the order of termination of services of the petitioner dated 17th January, 2004 (Annexure P-15) are quashed. It is stated that the petitioner had expired on 12th July, 2005 and till his death, he was teaching in the respondent- School, as the order (Annexure P-15) had been stayed by this Court. Therefore, the terminal benefits including pension of the petitioner shall be worked out and paid to the legal representatives of the petitioner- Ravinder Kumar by the respondents in accordance with provisions of law. The needful shall be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The salary of the petitioner, if withheld, shall also be released. No costs. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE September 23, 2010 rps 6