Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishna Devi vs State Of Haryana on 15 March, 2001
Author: M.L. Singhal
Bench: M.L. Singhal
JUDGMENT M.L. Singhal, J.
1. This revision is directed by Smt. Krishna Devi against the order dated 5.5.2000 of Additional District Judge. Bhiwani whereby he allowed the appeal of the State of Haryana/Di strict Education officer (DEO) Bhiwani from the order of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani who had stayed the operation of the order terminating her services.
2. Smt. Krishna Devi joined the service of the State of Haryana as Hindi Teacher on 12.10.96 in pursuance of the judgment and decree dated 10.9.96 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani in her favour. It was held that Shiksha Visharad obtained by her from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Alla-habad was equivalent to O.T., as such, she could not be treated as not fulfilling qualification for appointment as Hindi Teacher. She appeared at interview for the post of C&V (Hindi language teacher) before the District Education Officer, Bhiwani in pursuance of the letter No. STA-94/322-521 dated 27.6.94. No appointment letter was, however, issued to her as Shikhsa Visharad (LTC) passed by her from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad was not (reated equivalent to O.T. She passed Shiksha Visharad (LTC) in 1988 which is equivalent to O.T. District Education Officer, Bhiwani acted arbitrarily and did not issue her appointment letter. She requested him several times to issue her appointment letter but to no effect. She served notice upon the State of Haryana/District Education Officer, Bhiwani as envisaged in Section 80 CPC on 3.11.95 calling upon them to give her appointment letter for the post of Hindi teacher but to not effect. Eventually she filed civil suit No. 32 of 1995 titled Krishna Devi v. State of Haryana-seeking direction to the Haryana to issue her appointment letter. That suit was decreed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani vide order dated 10.9.96 who directed DEO, Bhiwani to give her appointment to tbe post of Hindi teacher. She jointed the service of the State of Haryana as Hindi Teacher on 12.10.96 in pursuance of the judgment/decree dated 10.9.96 (ibid) in Govt. High School, Mandhana, District Bhiwani. It was held that Shiksha Visharad obtained by her from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, Allahabad was equivalent to O.T.
3. Vide letter No. 1850 dated 21.8.97, District Education Officer, Bhiwani issued instructions to Headmaster, Govt. High School, Mandhana to terminate her services after notice to her in the wake of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in Ram Bhagat Sharma etc. v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 16320 of 1996.
4. Smt. Krishna Devi filed suit for declaration against the State of Haryana/DEO, Bhiwani to the effect that office letter No. 1850 dated 21.8.97 of DEO, Bhiwani was wrong,) illegal, without jurisdiction, arbitrary and was against the principles of natural justice, as such liable to be set aside and further order dated 8.10.99 of DEO, Bhiwani ordering the termination of her services was wrong, illegal, without jurisdiction, mala fide and the said order was not binding on her and was liable to be set aside and she was entitled to continue on the pest of Hindi teacher and for permanent injunction restraining the State of Haryana/DEO, Bhiwani from terminating her services on the basis of letter No. 1850 dated 21.8.97. It was alleged in the plaint that DEO, Bhiwani had no right to issue instruct ions to terminate her services as she had been given appointment in compliance of the decree of the court dated 10.9.96 (ibid) against which no appeal was filed. It was a binding decree. No opportunity of hearing was given to her before terminating her services. It was alleged in the plaint that DEO, Bhiwani passed an order No. EST-2/99/6251-53 dated 8.10.99 terminating her services which was illegal, null and void, against law and facts which is against the spirit of the decree. Along the plaint, the plaintiff made an application for the grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants State of Haryana/DEO, Bhiwani from terminating her services from the post of Hindi Teacher as she was holding Shikhsa Visharad qualification from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad which was equivalent to O.T. of the State of Haryana. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani allowed this application vide order dated 27.10.99 and gave her the injunciion prayed for State of Haryana/DEO, Bhiwani went in appeal which was allowed by Additional District Judge, Bhiwani vide order dated 5.5.2000.
5. Not satisfied with the order dated 5.5.2000 of Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, Smt. Krishna Devi has come up in revision to this Court.
6. In this case, question that arises is whether the qualification "Shikhsa Visharad (LTC)" obtained by Smt. Krishna Devi from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad was equivalent to O.T. of the State of Haryana so that her appointment as Hindi teacher could be said to be in order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the question whether she was or she was not holding proper qualification for appointment as Hindi teacher in the State of Haryana could not be reopened in view of the decision of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani dated 10.9.96 rendered in civil suit No. 132 of 1995 titled Krishna Devi wife of Puran Chand Girdharv. State of Haryana/District Education Officer, Bhiwani which attained finality as there was no appeal against that decision. It was submitted that this question whether she was or she was not fulfilling the criteria laid down for appointment as Hindi teacher was directly in issue in that suit and it was found that Shikhsa Visharad from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad was equivalent to O.T. of Haryana and was proper qualification for appointment as Hindi teacher in the State of Haryana. In that suit, the court found that she was entitled to be selected for the post of C&V (Hindi Language) teacher on ad hoc basis as Shikhsa Visharad from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad was equivalent to O.T. of Haryana and the court gave direction to the State of Haryana to give her appointment to the post of C&V (Hindi Language) teacher and she was given appointment as Hindi teacher.
7. Faced with this position, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana submitted that the appointment of Smt. Krishna Devi to the post of C&V (Hindi Language) teacher is void in view of Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Ram Bhagat Sharma and other v. State of Haryana and others, 1997(4) RSJ 134 (CWP No. 16320 of 1996), where it was held that the candidates who have passed Shiksha Visharad conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad are not entitled to be appointed as Hindi teacher. In CWP 16320 of 1996 the facts are as follows :-
"Petitioners-Ram Bhagat Sharma and others had passed matriculation examination from the Board of School Education, Bhiwani, Prabhakar from Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak and Shiksha Visharad/Language Teachers Course from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad. All of them got themselves registered for employment in the services of the Slate of Haryana. Other petitioners who have also passed Shiksha Visharad/Language Teachers Course from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, Allahabad have been registered with different employment exchanges in Haryana. The grievance of the petitioners was that the respondents 5 to 8 had acted illegally, because they did not sponsor the names of the petitioners for recruitment as Hindi Teachers in response to the requisitions sent by the Education Department and this has resulted in violation of their rights to equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The plea of the petitioners was that in view of the instructions issued by the Government vide circular dated 18.3.1975 and 16.6.1979 read with letter dated 2.6.1984, Shiksha Visharad examination passed by the petitioners from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad must be treated as recognised for the purpose of employment in the service of the Government of Haryana and the decision contained in letter No. 956/Coord/4 dated 17.4.1995 could not adversely effect their right of consideration.
State of Haryana contested the writ petition on the premise that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad had not been recognised either by the Goyt. of Indiaor by the Govt. of Haryana and the petitioners could not be treated eligible for recruitment as Hindi teacher because they did not fulfil the minimum qualification prescribed by the competent authority. It was further stated that Shikhsa Visharad examination had riot been treated as equivalent to Hindi Language teachers course conducted by the Education Department of the Govt. of Haryana."
Writ petition was dismissed. The Govt. was ordered to issue written instructions to alt the recruiting agencies and the appointing authorities not to select or appoint any person who had passed examination or secured the degree/diploma or certificate from any institution not recognised by the Govt. The Bench also directed the State of Haryana for terminating the services of all such teachers who had secured employment on the has is of degrees/diplomas/certificates issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, Allahabad. It was further directed that those who had completed more than 3 years service, should be given an opportunity to acquire the requisite qualification within a stipulated time, in case they fail to acquire such qualification, the appropriate order be passed to dispense with the services of such persons.
As Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, Allahabad was neither a University nor a deemed University, the de-grees/diplomas/certificates awarded by it were not recognised in the State of Haryana. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, Allahabad had neither been established under an Act of the Parliament or of the State Legislature nor had it been recognised by Kurukshetra University or Maharishi Dayanand University, the examinations conducted by it cannot be said to have been conducted under any authority or law and as such the examinations conducted by it are void.
It was submitted by the learned Additional Advocate, General, Haryana that the services of the petitioner were terminated in compliance with the directions given by the Court in Ram Bhagat Sharma and others v. State of Haryana and others (supra). Copy of this judgment was sent to the District Education Officer, Bhiwani for strict compliance. It is thus clear that Smt. Krishna Devi was not fulfilling necessary qualification for appointment as C&V (Hindi Language Teacher) in the State of Haryana.
8. In my opinion, there can be no going back upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ram Bhagat Sharma and others v. State of Haryana (supra) where it has been categorically held that the candidates who have passed Shiksha Visharad from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, Allahabad are not entitled to be considered for appointment as Hindi teacher at all and the degrees/diplomas/certificates awarded by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, Allahabad are fake and bogus. In para 14 of 1997(4) RSJ 134 (supra), the court has recorded as follows :-
"In reply to the letter of the committee, Sh. Prabhat Shastri informed that the correspondence was going on with N.C.T.E. for recognition of the degree (Shiksha Visharad). The committee also examined, the candidates who have procured Shiksha Visharad degree from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad. Most of them failed to give the names of papers offered by them and the contents thereof. Some could not even tell the names of the examination centres and the number of papers offered by them."
In para 15 of the judgment, the court observed that with regard to the examination centres, the committee comprising Shri S.K. Joshi, Additional Director (Enquiry), Directorate of Secondary Education, Haryana and Shri Har Gobind Arora, HES (II), Senior Specialist, State Council of Educational Research Training, Haryana, Gurgaon recorded the following observations :
"The committee has come to know that there are numerous examination centres spread all over the State who attract the children to get Shiksha Visharad and other degrees of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad. Out of these, Committee visited 10 centres in a short span of time situated at Hissar, Bhiwani, Chiria (Bhiwani), Charkhi Dadri (Bhiwani). Ambala Cantt, and Shahbad Markanda. Most of these centres are housed in a single room or in the residences. They charge a lump-sum amount of Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 6000/- depending upon the economic status and the requirement of the candidates. Centres in-charges are not well qualified for the coaching of Shiksha Visharad students. No high school is attached to any of the centres for the class room teaching practice of the so-called examinees. They receive questions papers, date-sheet and answer sheets from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, Allahabad. Afterwards they run their centres independently. They give full surety to the candidates to get through the examination by securing good marks. They say that cow-herds come to us and we get them the certificates procured."
Smt. Krishna Devi was thus not fulfilling the essential qualifications required for the post of Hindi teacher in the Stale of Haryana. Smt. Krishna Devi remained in service upto 8.10.1999 (sic) from 8.10.1996. She can, however not be given the benefit of this 3 years service as she had filed this suit only after receipt of letter dated 21.8.1997 of the District Education Officer, Bhiwani to terminate her services which was in the wake of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in Ram Bhagat Sharma v. State of Haryana and others, CWP 16320 of 1996. In the process of giving her opportunity of hearing, more than 2 years period was taken by the department for considering the question whether she had been rightly appointed or her appointment was in disregard of the law laid down in CWP No. 16320 of 1996." Her service were thus continued upto 8.10.1999 in the same manner in which a patient nearing death is put on oxygen and the remains on oxygen.
For the reasons given above, no temporary injunction could be allowed to her. So, this revision failed and is dismissed.
9. Revision dismissed.