advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Service matter - appointment of private teachers - DEO refused to approve - challanged - High court allowed the writs - Apex court held that since the appointments are made against the procedure , the order of High court is liable to be set aside - further held that The Management had required the private respondents to discharge their duties, without the prior approval of the State Government. The Management should therefore bear the responsibility of shouldering the emoluments payable to the private respondents. We therefore, hereby direct the Management of the Doaba Arya Senior Secondary School, Nawanshahr to pay all emoluments (if the same are still unpaid) to the private respondents, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.= CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7983-7986 OF 2009 State of Punjab and others ..Appellants versus Anita and others ..Respondents = 2014 - Sept.Month - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=42029

   Service matter - appointment of private teachers - DEO refused to approve  - challanged - High court allowed the writs - Apex court held that since the appointments are made against the procedure , the order of High court is liable to be set aside - further held that The Management had  required  the  private respondents to discharge their duties, without the  prior  approval  of  the State Government. The Management should therefore  bear  the  responsibility of shouldering  the  emoluments  payable  to  the  private  respondents.  We therefore, hereby direct the  Management of the Doaba Arya Senior  Secondary School, Nawanshahr to pay all emoluments (if the same are still  unpaid)  to the private respondents, within two months from the date  of  receipt  of  a  copy of this order.=

 Wanted following  dedicated,  talented,  trained  and  experienced  teachers
against six vacant JBT/ETT aided posts  preferably  one  M.A.  English,  one
M.Sc. Chem., One M.Sc. Bio, M.Com., one M.Sc. Maths, one M.A.  Eco  and  one
Watchman. Apply Principal afresh within  ten  days  alongwith  testimonials.
Reservation exists as per Govt. rules.
                                                                        Sd/-
                                                   Principal, Doaba Arya Sr. Sec. School,
                                                                           Nawanshahr. =
The  private  respondents  were  selected   against   the   six
advertised posts, by the Managing Committee of the  above  school.   Despite
their selection and consequential appointment, the State Government did  not accord its approval.=

It is therefore, that the District Education  Officer,
Nawanshahr (hereinafter referred to as the  'DEO')  passed  an  order  dated
04.4.2005, declining the claim of the private  respondents.   A  perusal  of
the speaking order passed by the DEO, inter alia, reveals, that the  private
respondents  had  been  appointed  in  violation  of  the  statutory   rules
regulating appointments to privately managed  recognised  schools.   It  was
also indicated in the order dated 04.4.2005, that the selection process  was
not  in consonance with  the statutory rules.
            The order passed by the DEO dated 04.4.2005 was assailed by  the
private respondents  before the High Court by  filing  Civil  Writ  Petition
No. 15599 of 2006.=
 we are of  the  view,
that the private respondents do  not  satisfy  the  pre-condition  of  valid
appointment expressed therein,  inasmuch  as,  it  was  imperative  for  the
Selection  Committee,  in  the  first  instance,  to  consider  only   those
candidates who possessed the qualification of JBT/ETT, and thereupon,  posts
that remained unfilled could be filled up  with  persons  possessing  higher
qualifications,  i.e.,  graduate/post  graduate  qualifications  along  with
B.Ed..  That was not the procedure which came to be adopted in  the  present
controversy.  Therefore  per  se,  no  benefit  can  flow  to  the   private
respondents, from the government instructions relied  upon  by  the  learned
counsel. Be that as it may, it needs to be emphasised, that para  6  of  the
Government Instructions dated 20.12.1995, are  in  clear  violation  of  the
statutory process of selection and appointment  postulated  under  the  1981
Rules.  Even if  the  above  Government  Instructions  would  have  bestowed
validity on the selection process, through  which  the  private  respondents
came to be appointed, the  same  could  not  have  been  acceded  to,  since
Government Instructions in violation of the statutory rules, are  a  nullity
in law. In view of the foregoing reasons, it  is  not  possible  for  us  to
bestow legitimacy/legality to the appointment of the respondents as  JBT/ETT
teachers.
            For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we are satisfied that  the
impugned order passed by the High Court dated 2.7.2007 is liable to  be  set
aside.  The same is accordingly hereby set aside.
            We were informed,  that  the  private  respondents  came  to  be
appointed by the Management of  the  Doaba  Arya  Senior  Secondary  School,
Nawanshahr, in the year 2002.  We  were  also  informed,  that  the  private
respondents have continued to be in the employment of the Doaba Arya  Senior
Secondary School, Nawanshahr, till date.  No fault whatsoever lies with  the
private respondents.  The fault, if at all, lies  with  the   Management  of
the Doaba Arya  Senior  Secondary  School,  Nawanshahr.  Unfortunately,  the
Management of the Doaba Arya Senior Secondary School, Nawanshahr, issued  an advertisement in violation of the 1981 Rules.   The  procedure  depicted  in
the 1981 Rules was also not followed while making appointments, to  the  six
vacant posts of JBT/ETT teachers. The Management had  required  the  private
respondents to discharge their duties, without the  prior  approval  of  the
State Government. The Management should therefore  bear  the  responsibility
of shouldering  the  emoluments  payable  to  the  private  respondents.  We
therefore, hereby direct the  Management of the Doaba Arya Senior  Secondary
School, Nawanshahr to pay all emoluments (if the same are still  unpaid)  to
the private respondents, within two months from the date  of  receipt  of  a
certified copy of this order.
            The instant civil appeals are accordingly allowed in  the  above
terms.
        2014 - Sept.Month http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=42029            
                              REPORTABLE
                 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                 CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7983-7986 OF 2009


State of Punjab and others                        ..Appellants

                       versus

Anita and others                                  ..Respondents
                                  WITH

                 CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7970-7971 OF 2009


                            J U D G M E N T


J.S.KHEHAR, J.


            The Management  of  the  Doaba  Arya  Senior  Secondary  School,
Nawanshahr, issued an advertisement in the Indian Express dated  25.05.2002,
inviting applications for six vacant posts of JBT/ETT teachers.   Since  the
controversy, being adjudicated upon, is substantially to  be  determined  on
the basis of the contents of  the  advertisement,  the  above  advertisement
dated 25.05.2002 is being extracted hereunder:
“Doaba Arya Senior Secondary School, Nawanshahr

Wanted following  dedicated,  talented,  trained  and  experienced  teachers
against six vacant JBT/ETT aided posts  preferably  one  M.A.  English,  one
M.Sc. Chem., One M.Sc. Bio, M.Com., one M.Sc. Maths, one M.A.  Eco  and  one
Watchman. Apply Principal afresh within  ten  days  alongwith  testimonials.
Reservation exists as per Govt. rules.
                                                                        Sd/-
Principal, Doaba Arya Sr. Sec. School,
                            Nawanshahr.


             The  private  respondents  were  selected   against   the   six
advertised posts, by the Managing Committee of the  above  school.   Despite
their selection and consequential appointment, the State Government did  not accord its approval. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, that the  private
respondents, i.e., the selected  JBT/ETT  teachers   issue  a  notice  dated
1.2.2004, wherein they sought approval of the  State  Government,  as  also,
wages for the period they had been discharging their  duties.   Since,  they
did not receive any  response  to  the  legal  notice  dated  1.2.2004,  the
private respondents approached the High  Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana  at
Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the 'High  Court')  by  filing  Civil
Writ Petition No.6789 of 2004.  Rather than  examining  the  merits  of  the
controversy, the High Court by its  order  dated  27.04.2004,  required  the
State Government to take a decision on  the  legal  notice,  issued  by  the
private respondents.  It is therefore, that the District Education  Officer,
Nawanshahr (hereinafter referred to as the  'DEO')  passed  an  order  dated
04.4.2005, declining the claim of the private  respondents.   A  perusal  of
the speaking order passed by the DEO, inter alia, reveals, that the  private
respondents  had  been  appointed  in  violation  of  the  statutory   rules
regulating appointments to privately managed  recognised  schools.   It  was
also indicated in the order dated 04.4.2005, that the selection process  was
not  in consonance with  the statutory rules.
            The order passed by the DEO dated 04.4.2005 was assailed by  the
private respondents  before the High Court by  filing  Civil  Writ  Petition
No. 15599 of 2006.  The same came to be allowed by the impugned order  dated
2.7.2007.  A perusal of the impugned order  reveals,  that  the  High  Court
emphatically placed reliance on an earlier  litigation  in  respect  of  the
same selection process, wherein a Division Bench of the  High  Court,  while
disposing of  civil  writ  petition  No.  13979  of  2002  (by  order  dated
16.2.2004),  had  found  the  petitioner  therein  not  possessing  superior
qualifications to the private respondent no.4, whose  selection  was  sought
to be assailed.  The High Court had also,  while  disposing  of  civil  writ
petition no.13979 of 2002, rejected the contention advanced at the hands  of
the petitioner therein, that  the  process  of  selection  was  vitiated  on
account of bias.
            Since the order passed in civil writ petition no. 13979 of  2002
was affirmed by this Court, the special leave  petition  filed  against  the
said order before this Court was dismissed. The  High  Court  inferred  from
the above dismissal, that the selection process had been  approved  by  this
Court.
            We will first endeavour to deal with the basis  adopted  by  the
High Court in affirming the selection process of  the  private  respondents,
consequent whereof they came to be appointed as JBT/ETT teachers.  It  would
be  relevant  to  mention,  that  the  qualifications  prescribed  for   the
advertised  JBT/ETT  posts  were  not  at  all   the   subject   matter   of
consideration in writ petition no. 13979 of  2002,  nor  was  the  selection
process a matter for consideration.  In the above view, it  was  not  proper
for the High Court to approve  the  selection  process,  by  which  the  six
private respondents came to be appointed  as  JBT/ETT  teachers.   Moreover,
the issues which are now raised were not examined by the High Court,  or  by
this Court, during the previous  litigation.   We  are,  therefore,  of  the
considered view, that the High  Court  should  have  addressed  the  pointed
questions raised before it,  while  examining  the  legality  of  the  order
passed by the DEO dated 04.4.2005.  Unfortunately, the High  Court  did  not
deal with any of the reasons recorded by the DEO (while rejecting the  claim
raised by the private respondents).
            We shall now deal with the pointed issues recorded  by  the  DEO
in his order dated 04.4.2005.  It is not a matter of dispute,  that  insofar
as the selection and appointments to privately  managed  recognised  schools
in the State of Punjab is concerned, the same are regulated  by  the  Punjab
Privately Managed Recognised Schools Employees (Security of Service)  Rules,
1981 (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  '1981  Rules').   Rule  6  of  the
aforesaid Rules lays down the qualifications for different posts,  and  Rule
7 the manner/method of appointment. Rules 6 and 7  of  the  1981  Rules  are
reproduced hereunder:
“6. Qualification – (1) No person shall  be  appointed  to  an  aided  post,
unless he possess the qualifications and  experience  as  specified  against
that post in the Appendix to these rules.

(2) Unless otherwise specified in the Appendix to these rules,  an  employee
who has not  attained  the  knowledge  of  Hindi  and  Punjabi  language  of
matriculation standard or its equivalent, shall have  to  acquire  the  same
within a period of two years  from  the  date  of  his  appointment  of  the
commencement of these rules, whichever is earlier, failing  which  he  shall
not earn his first grade increments till he  acquires  such  knowledge  when
the increments shall be released retrospectively :

Provided that he shall not be entitled to get arrears of the released  grade
increments for the period during which he could not  acquire  the  aforesaid
knowledge.

7. Appointing authority and method of appointment – All appointments to  the
aided posts shall be  made  by  the  managing  committee  in  the  following
manner:

(i) Appointing authority shall advertise  in  both  English  and  vernacular
daily newspapers in the State, vacancy or  vacancies  to  be  filled  in  by
giving full particulars  thereof  including  the  requisite  qualifications,
number of vacancies to  be  filled  in  and  the  last  date  by  which  the
applications may be submitted;

(ii) The recommendations for appointment of the candidates shall be made  by
a sub-committee consisting five members of the managing committee.

(2) The members of the sub-committee shall  be  appointed  by  the  managing
committee.”


A perusal of Rule  6  reveals,  that  qualifications  for  posts  under  the
purview of the 1981 Rules have been expressed in the appendix  to  the  1981
Rules. Insofar as the post of JBT teacher is concerned, the same figures  at
serial no.10 of the appendix, wherein the prescribed qualifications  are  as
under:
                                  APPENDIX
                                (See Rule 6)

|Serial  |Designation of Post         |Qualifications and experiences       |
|No.     |                            |                                     |
|1       |2                           |3                                    |
|10.     |J.B.T. Teacher              |(i) Martic with two years course in  |
|        |                            |J.B.T. Training; and                 |
|        |                            |                                     |
|        |                            |(ii) Knowledge of Punjabi and Hindi  |
|        |                            |Language of Matriculation Standard or|
|        |                            |its equivalent.                      |


Under the  1981  Rules,  for  the  post  of  JBT  teachers,  the  prescribed
qualification is, matriculation with two years course in JBT  training.   In
addition thereto, a candidate should have knowledge  of  Punjabi  and  Hindi
language of matriculation standard, or its equivalent.
            The issue which  requires  our  consideration  is,  whether  the
advertisement issued by the Doaba Arya Senior Secondary School,  Nawanshahr,
had invited applications by truly reflecting the prescribed  qualifications,
and  also  whether,  the  private  respondents  possess  the   qualification
prescribed for the  post  of  JBT/ETT  teachers,  which  was  advertised  on
25.2.2002.
            While examining the  advertisement,  which  has  been  extracted
hereinabove, we are  satisfied  that  applications  were  not  invited  from
candidates possessing the qualification depicted  in  the  appendix  to  the
1981 Rules, pertaining to  the  posts  of  JBT/ETT  teachers.   It  is  also
apparent, that none of the private respondents possess the qualification  of
JBT/ETT, and as such, none  of  them  can  be  stated  to  be  possessed  of
qualifications statutorily prescribed and delineated in the appendix of  the
1981 Rules.  None of the private respondents was therefore per  se  eligible
for appointment to the posts of JBT/ETT  teachers.   This  was  one  of  the
pointed reasons why the State Government did not grant its approval  to  the
selection and appointment of the  private  respondents.  In  our  considered
view, no infirmity can be found in the aforesaid determination at the  hands
of the State Government.
            Insofar as the issue in hand  is  concerned,  reference  may  be
made to the decision rendered by this Court in P.M. Latha  and  another  vs.
State of Kerala and others (2003) 3 SCC 541,  wherein  this  Court  held  as
under:
We find absolutely no force in the  argument  advances  by  the  respondents
that BEd qualification is a higher qualification than TTC and therefore  the
BEd candidates should be held to be eligible to compete  for  the  post.  On
behalf of  the  appellants,  it  is  pointed  out  before  us  that  Trained
Teacher's Certificate is given to teachers specially trained to teach  small
children in primary classes whereas for BEd degree,  the  training  imparted
is  to  teach  students  of  classes  above   primary.  BEd  degree-holders,
therefore, cannot necessarily be held to be holding  qualification  suitable
for appointment as teachers in primary schools.  Whether  for  a  particular
post, the source of recruitment should  be  from  the  candidates  with  TTC
qualification or BEd qualification, is a matter of  recruitment  policy.  We
find  sufficient  logic  and  justification   in   the   State   prescribing
qualification for the post of primary teachers as  only  TTC  and  not  BEd.
Whether BEd qualification can also be prescribed for primary teachers  is  a
question to be  considered  by  the  authorities  concerned  but  we  cannot
consider  BEd  candidates,  for  the  present   vacancies   advertised,   as
eligible.”

                                             (emphasis is ours)

Reference may also be made to the decision rendered by this Court in  Yogesh
Kumar and others vs. Government of NCT of Delhi  and  others  (2003)  3  SCC
548, wherein this Court held as under:
“The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in  the  impugned  judgment  has
dealt with the above two  arguments  in  great  detail.  In  our  considered
opinion, it has rightly come  to  the  conclusion  that  BEd  qualification,
although a well-recognised  qualification  in  the  field  of  teaching  and
education being not prescribed in the advertisement, only some  of  the  BEd
candidates who took a chance to apply for the post cannot be given entry  in
the field of selection. We also find that the High  Court  rightly  came  to
the conclusion that teacher training imparted to  teachers  for  BEd  course
equips them for teaching higher classes. A  specialized  training  given  to
teachers for teaching small children at primary  level  cannot  be  compared
with  training  given  for  awarding  BEd  degree.  Merely  because  primary
teachers can also earn promotion to the post of  teachers  to  teach  higher
classes and for which BEd is the  prescribed  qualification,  it  cannot  be
held that BEd is a higher qualification than TTC. Looking to  the  different
nature of TTC qualification, the High Court rightly  held  that  it  is  not
comparable with BEd degree qualification and the latter  cannot  be  treated
as higher qualification to the former.”

                                       (emphasis is ours)

A perusal of the aforesaid judgments leave no room for any  doubt,  that  it
is  imperative  for  candidates  to  possess  the  statutory   qualification
prescribed  for  appointment  to  the  posts,  to  which  they  are  seeking
appointment.    In  view  of  the   position   declared   by   this   Court,
qualifications of B.Ed and other qualifications  possessed  by  the  private
respondents, namely, M.A., M.Sc, M.Com. Etc. cannot  be  treated  as  higher
qualifications with reference  to  the  prescribed  qualifications(JBT/ETT).
We, therefore, find the reasons recorded by the DEO in  the  impugned  order
dated 04.4.2005 were fully justified,  and  in  consonance  with  the  legal
position declared by this Court, as has been noticed hereinabove.
            To be fair to the learned counsel for the  private  respondents,
we may also make a reference to the  decision  rendered  by  this  Court  in
Jyoti K.K. and others  vs.  Kerala  Public  Service  Commission  and  others
(2010) 15 SCC 596.  Learned counsel had invited our attention  to  paragraph
7 thereof, wherein it was observed as under:
“It is no doubt true, as stated by the High Court that when a  qualification
has been set out under the relevant Rules, the same cannot be in any  manner
whittled down and a different qualification  cannot  be  adopted.  The  High
Court is also justified  in  stating  that  the  higher  qualification  must
clearly indicate or presuppose the acquisition of the  lower  qualifications
prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post. If  a  person
has acquired higher qualifications in the same Faculty, such  qualifications
can  certainly  be  stated  to  presuppose  the  acquisition  of  the  lower
qualifications prescribed for the post. In the case it may not be  necessary
to seek far.”

                                       (emphasis is ours)

It is no doubt true, that this Court  held  in  the  afore-stated  judgment,
that if a person had acquired higher qualifications  in  the  same  faculty,
such qualifications can certainly  be stated to presuppose  the  acquisition
of the  lower  qualification.   Possession  of  higher  qualification  would
therefore, according to learned counsel, make a candidate eligible  for  the
post,  even  though,  the  candidate  does  not   possess   the   prescribed
qualification. The question however is, whether the above  position  can  be
applied to the present case?
            It was sought to be asserted  on  the  basis  of  the  aforesaid
observations,  that   since   the   private   respondents   possess   higher
qualifications, then the qualification of JBT/ETT, they  should  be  treated
as having fulfilled the qualification stipulated for the  posts  of  JBT/ETT
teachers.  It is not possible for us to accept the aforesaid  submission  of
the learned counsel for  the  private  respondents,  because  the  statutory
rules which were taken into consideration by this Court while recording  the
aforesaid  observations  in  Jyoti  K.K.'s  case  (supra),   permitted   the
aforesaid course.  The statutory rule,  in the decision  relied  on  by  the
learned counsel for the private respondents, is extracted hereunder:
6. Rule 10(a)(ii) reads as follows :

“10.(a)(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in  these  Rules  or  in  the
Special  Rules,  the  qualifications  recognised  by  executive  orders   or
standing orders of Government as equivalent  to  a  qualification  specified
for a post in the Special Rules and  such  of  those  higher  qualifications
which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification  prescribed  for
the post shall also be sufficient for the post.”
                                                          (emphasis is ours)

A perusal of the  rule  clearly  reveals,  that  the  possession  of  higher
qualification would presuppose the acquisition of  the  lower  qualification
prescribed for the posts.  Insofar as the present controversy is  concerned,
there is no similar  statutory  provision  authorizing  the  appointment  of
persons with higher qualifications.   Moreover,  in  view  of  the  decision
rendered by this Court in P.M. Latha's case (supra) and  in  Yogesh  Kumar's
case (supra) lead to the clear an unambiguous conclusion that  none  of  the
private respondents  could  be  considered  as  eligible  for  selection  or
appointment to the advertised posts of JBT/ETT teachers.
             It  is  also  necessary  for  us  to  take  into  consideration
Government Instructions dated 20.12.1995, which were relied upon by  learned
counsel, so as to contend, that the private respondents who  possess  higher
qualifications including the qualifications depicted as preferential in  the
advertisement,  should be treated as  eligible.   Relevant  extract  of  the
aforesaid Government  Instructions  dated  20.12.1995  is  being  reproduced
hereunder:
“6.   Vide letter No.1/18/95-3Edu-7/20602, dated 14.09.1995  the  Government
has taken the decision that in future the appointment of J.B.T. Teachers  in
the Government Schools  may  be  done  in  two  parts.  In  first  part  the
candidates  who  are  possessing  the  qualification  of  J.B.T./E.T.T.   or
equivalent shall  be  considered.  Thereafter,  in  case  it  emerges  that,
J.B.T./E.T.T.  qualified  candidates  are  not  available,  in  that  event,
appointments may be made by adopting second part. It should be mentioned  in
the  advertisement,  that  in  case  candidates   with    J.B.T./E.T.T.   or
equivalent  qualification  are  not  available,  then  candidates  who  have
graduation/post  graduation  qualifications  with   B.Ed.   will   also   be
considered. But  the  candidates  having  qualification  of  graduation/post
graduation/ along with B.Ed. shall be paid the  scale  of  J.B.T.  only.  In
such cases, an affidavit will be furnished  by  the  candidates  that  after
selection, being graduates/post graduates candidates,  will  not  claim  any
other benefit or higher scale, and in this regard, at the  time  of  sending
the  requisition  of  posts,  this  shall  also  be  incorporated   in   the
advertisement.”


            Having given our thoughtful  consideration  to  the  submissions
advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for  the  private  respondents,
based on the government instructions dated 20.12.1995, we are of  the  view,
that the private respondents do  not  satisfy  the  pre-condition  of  valid
appointment expressed therein,  inasmuch  as,  it  was  imperative  for  the
Selection  Committee,  in  the  first  instance,  to  consider  only   those
candidates who possessed the qualification of JBT/ETT, and thereupon,  posts
that remained unfilled could be filled up  with  persons  possessing  higher
qualifications,  i.e.,  graduate/post  graduate  qualifications  along  with
B.Ed..  That was not the procedure which came to be adopted in  the  present
controversy.  Therefore  per  se,  no  benefit  can  flow  to  the   private
respondents, from the government instructions relied  upon  by  the  learned
counsel. Be that as it may, it needs to be emphasised, that para  6  of  the
Government Instructions dated 20.12.1995, are  in  clear  violation  of  the
statutory process of selection and appointment  postulated  under  the  1981
Rules.  Even if  the  above  Government  Instructions  would  have  bestowed
validity on the selection process, through  which  the  private  respondents
came to be appointed, the  same  could  not  have  been  acceded  to,  since
Government Instructions in violation of the statutory rules, are  a  nullity
in law. In view of the foregoing reasons, it  is  not  possible  for  us  to
bestow legitimacy/legality to the appointment of the respondents as  JBT/ETT
teachers.
            For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we are satisfied that  the
impugned order passed by the High Court dated 2.7.2007 is liable to  be  set
aside.  The same is accordingly hereby set aside.
            We were informed,  that  the  private  respondents  came  to  be
appointed by the Management of  the  Doaba  Arya  Senior  Secondary  School,
Nawanshahr, in the year 2002.  We  were  also  informed,  that  the  private
respondents have continued to be in the employment of the Doaba Arya  Senior
Secondary School, Nawanshahr, till date.  No fault whatsoever lies with  the
private respondents.  The fault, if at all, lies  with  the   Management  of
the Doaba Arya  Senior  Secondary  School,  Nawanshahr.  Unfortunately,  the
Management of the Doaba Arya Senior Secondary School, Nawanshahr, issued  an
advertisement in violation of the 1981 Rules.   The  procedure  depicted  in
the 1981 Rules was also not followed while making appointments, to  the  six
vacant posts of JBT/ETT teachers. The Management had  required  the  private
respondents to discharge their duties, without the  prior  approval  of  the
State Government. The Management should therefore  bear  the  responsibility
of shouldering  the  emoluments  payable  to  the  private  respondents.  We
therefore, hereby direct the  Management of the Doaba Arya Senior  Secondary
School, Nawanshahr to pay all emoluments (if the same are still  unpaid)  to
the private respondents, within two months from the date  of  receipt  of  a
certified copy of this order.
            The instant civil appeals are accordingly allowed in  the  above
terms.       As  a  sequel  to  the   above,   all   pending   interlocutory
applications are disposed of.

            Civil Appeal Nos. 7970-7971 of 2009
            It is not a matter  of  dispute  that  the  controversy  in  the
present civil appeals is identical to the one adjudicated upon by us in  the
case of State of Punjab and  others  vs.  Anita  and  others  (Civil  Appeal
Nos.7983-7986 of 2009) decided on 24.09.2014.
            In view of  the  above,  the  instant  civil  appeals  are  also
allowed in the same terms.

                                       …..........................J.
                                       [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR]


NEW DELHI;                        …..........................J.
SEPTEMBER 24, 2014.                    [ARUN MISHRA]




ITEM NO.104               COURT NO.7               SECTION IV

               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal  No(s).  7983-7986/2009

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.                             Appellant(s)

                                VERSUS
ANITA AND ORS                                      Respondent(s)
(with appln(s) for exemption from filing OT and application for  transposing
and impleadment of non-official appellants as respondents)
WITH
C.A. No. 7970-7971/2009
(With Office Report)

Date : 24/09/2014 These appeals were called on for hearing
        today.

CORAM :
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA


For Appellant(s)       Mr. Sanchar Anand, AAG
                       Mr. Piyush Hands, Adv.
                    for Mr. Kuldip Singh,AOR(NP)
                       for Mr. Ajay Pal,AOR(NP)

For Respondent(s)      Mr. A.V. Palli, Adv.
                       Mr. Anupanm Raina, Adv.
                    for Mrs. Rekha Palli,AOR(NP)

                    Ms. S. Janani,Adv.
                       Mr. Deepak Goel, Adv.

          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                             O R D E R

            The appeals are allowed in terms of the Reportable Signed
Judgment, which is placed on the file.

            All pending interlocutory applications are disposed of.


(Parveen Kr. Chawla)                         (Phoolan Wati Arora)
    Court Master                                   Assistant Registrar

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.