Punjab-Haryana High Court
Neelam Kumari vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 24 September, 1992
Equivalent citations: (1993)103PLR117
Author: Ashok Bhan
Bench: Ashok Bhan
JUDGMENT A.L. Bahri, J.
1. Correctness of the decision rendered by the Division Bench in Civil Writ Petition No. 14364 of 1990, Harpal Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors., decided on July 11, 1991, having been doubted on the ground that the instructions issued by the State of Punjab on May 9, 1960, were not brought to the notice of the Bench, hearing the aforesaid case, the present writ petition has been put up before the Full Bench for decision.
2. Shri Parshotam Singh, father of Neelam Kumari, the petitioners, was working as Clerk in the office of Settlement Officer, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab at Ajnala. He died on August 25, 1963. He left behind the. petitioner, his daughter, and his widow, Smt. Santosh Kumari. The petitioner was minor at that time. After attaining majority, she applied for being appointed as Arts and Crafts teacher on compassionate grounds, as per instructions of the State Government dated April 18, 1973. Alongwith her application, she submitted a certificate of Arts and Crafts teacher training course completed during the session 1979-81, Annexure P/1. Respondent No. 5/Director, Consolidation of Holdings, recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment on February 8, 1988, to the Director, Public Instructions, Secondary Education Punjab. Copy of his letter is Annexure P/2. Director, Education Department, Punjab forwarded application of the petitioner to the District Education Officer, Hoshiarpur, respondent No. 3 alongwith enclosures in original for appointment of petitioner on priority basis, vide letter Annexure P/3, on May 2. 1988. The District Education Officer acknowledging receipt of application of the petitioner wrote letter Annexure P/4 on May 30, 1988, to the Director Education Department, Punjab to know if the training certificate obtained from Haryana by the petitioner had been recognised as equivalent to Arts and Crafts Course of the Punjab Stale, Annexure P/5 in reply to the aforesaid Setter, asking the District Education Officer to take action in accordance with the instructions of the department issued from time to time Again, District Education Officer, Hoshiarpur, wrote back to the Director, Education Department on October 12, 1988, copy Annexure P/6 to seek information whether Arts and Crafts Teacher Training Course 1981 Diploma passed from Haryana State is recognised by the Punjab Government. Reference was made to State Government's letter dated September 17/20, 1985, mentioning that the certificate passed from Haryana State was not recognised to he equivalent to Arts and Crafts Teacher Training Course in Punjab. There after application of the petitioner in original was sent to the District Education Officer, Jallandhar-respondent No. 4, for appointment of the petitioner on priority basis, on February 16, 1989, copy Annexure P/7. The petitioner issued a reminder on December, 6.1989, copy Annexure P-8, addressed to District Education Officer, Hoshiarpur, respondent No. 3, seeking appointment as Arts and Crafts teacher on priority basis, pointed our that the persons like the petitioner were already working in Punjab and they had also obtained such like diplomas from Haryana. Annexwre P/9 is the copy of letter of the Punjab Government Education Department dated February 10, 1989, addressed to the Director, Education Department, to the effect that the candidates who bad passed J. B. T. Training Course from Haryana State were recognised to be qualified and equivalent to J. B. T. passed from the Punjab State. This was with reference to Punjab Government's letter dated July 12. 1988, and after the aforesaid date they had stopped recognising J. B. T. Course of Pur jab State in view of the principle of reciprocal basis, the Punjab Government had reconsidered the matter and decided to give recognition to the J. B. T. Course of Haryana State subject to the condition that J. B. T. Course of Haryana State is of tow years duration and this would be applicable in case of those candidates who had passed their J. B. T. Course from the Haryan State upto April 28, 1981. Annexure P/10 is the letter of dated September 17/20, 1985, from Director, Education Department, to the District Education Officer, clarifying that Arts and Crafts Diploma conducted by Director of Industrial Training, Haryana, was not recognised as equivalent to Punjab Arts and Crafts Course. The District Education Officer vide his letter dated January 24, 1989, addressed to the petitioner informed her that she could not be appointed as there was no vacancy. Her application was returned in original. The petitioner wrote back to the District Education Officer, Jalandhar, on June 11, 1990, that some posts were still lying vacant and she should be appointed. Annexure P/13 is the letter from the District Education Officer, Jalandhar, addressed to the Director, Education Department Punjab on the subject of appointment of the petitioner under priority scheme, seeking guidelines/clarification on the point whether the diploma of Industrial Training, Haryana was recognised by the Government of Punjab or not. Annexure P/14 is the application submitted by the petitioner to the Secretary, Education Department, on September 3,1990, requesting for appointment. Annexure P/15 is another request in this behalf. Annexure P/16 is the letter of Secretary to Government, Punjab, Education Department, dated May 9, 1960, on the subject of recognition of Basic Education Degree/ Diploma, other than those where the instructions awarding these degrees/diplomas are located. The relevant portion is reproduced below :-
"It has been decided in consultation with the State Public Service Commission that the Junior Basic Teachers Training certificate or similar Diploma granted by any other State Public Government or by any Instruction situated within the juridiction of that State Government will be equivalent to the Junior Basic Teachers Training Certificate of the Punjab Education Department provided the following two conditions are fulfilled.
(i) It has been awarded after two years training.
(ii) in the event of its being awarded by any institution it is recognised by the State Government within whose jurisdiction the institution is situated."
It is this lette dated May 9, 1960, which was not produced before the Bench deciding the case of Harpal Singh (Civil Writ Petition No. 14364 of 1990). The Division Bench in the said case held that the Punjab Government had not at any stage recognised the diplomas of such training obtained from Haryana State and, thus, there was no question of their de-recognition. Such employees, who had obtained such like diplomas, could not seek appointments as teachers in the State of Punjab In para 5 of the judgment, it was observed as under:-
"At no stage, the respondents recognised the Haryana Diploma as equivalent to the Punjab Diploma and, therefore, the question of de-recongnition of the Haryana Diploma does not arise at all. The argument of the counsel for the petitioners that the decision has been enforced retrospectively has got absolutely no legs to stand upon as it is the case of the respondents in the return that it was by way of clarification that letter Annexure P-2 was written and in view thereof a clear cut note was appended in the interview letter that if any person who does not hold Punjab Diploma and if he has received the roll number by mistake, he need not appear for interview. The stand of the respondent is justified in view of letter Annexure P-2. Moreover, once we have believed that the Punjab State never recognised the Haryana Diploma at any stage, the question of the decision of the respondents being bad on the point of retrospectivity would surely hold no water. We are further of the view that a particular State has got all the powers to declare that a particular Diploma shall not be treated as equivalent to the Diploma of that State. In our considered view the action of the respondents cannot be held to be discriminatory simply because some persons with Haryana Diploma were appointed. This matter, according to the return filed by the respondents, is being looked into. Moreever if a mistake has been committed it does not mean that the respondents would keep on perpetrating the same mistake for all times to come."
In the written statement filed in the present case by the State in paragraph 7, again the stand has been taken that this Course of the State of Haryana was never recognised by the State of Punjab and reliance has been placed on the decision in Harpal Singh's case (supra). Issuing of letter Annexure P-16 was not disputed.
3. If Annexure P/16, extract of which has been reproduced above, is read closely, the position has been made abundantly clear that the State of Punjab had taken the decision after consulting the Punjab Public Service Commission that the similar Diplomas granted by other State Governments or any Institutions situated within the jurisdiction of that State Government would be equivalent to Junior Basic Teachers Training Course of the Punjab Education Department if two conditions are fulfilled i.e. such course was of two years training and the Diplomas were awarded by the Institutions recognised by the Government. If these instructions had been brought to the notice of the Division Bench, the decision would have been different and the judgment relied upon could not be distinguished.
4. Although in the present case it was not disputed that the Haryana Government had issued the Diploma Certificate in Final Arts and Crafts Teacher Training Examination, to be more sure, we called upon both the parties to produce the Diploma Certificate produced by the petitioner before the State seeking appointment. The petitioner has produced photo copy of such certificate and she also produced a photo copy of the Examination Roll of all the candidates from the Department of Industrial Training, Haryana. It is now quite clear that the certificate was issued by the Comptroller of Examinations, Department of Industrial Training, Haryana, in favour of the petitioner Smt. Neelam Kumari, daughter of Parshotam Singh, having passed final Arts and Crafts Teachers Examination, 1981, and Annexure P/l produced in the case another certificate issued from Arya High and Training School, Gohana, that this Course taken by the petitioner was of two years session 1979 81. The name of this institution is also mentioned in the certificate issued by the Comptroller of Examination Department of Industrial Training, Haryana. In view of the instructions Annexure P/l6, this Certificate of training taken in Haryana stood recognised by the State of Punjab. When the petitioner completed this course and applied for job, such certificates were recognised by the State of Punjab and if subsequently the State of Punjab decided to de-recognise such certificates, the same would be prospectively and will not apply retrospectively. In this context reference may be made to the decision of Supreme Court in Suresh Pal and Ors. v. State of Haryana, A. I. R. 1987 S. C. 2027. In para 3 of the judgment, it was observed as under:-
"Since at the time when the petitioners joined the course, it was recognised by the Government of Haryana and it was on the basis of this recognition that the petitioners joined the course, it would be unjust to tell the petitioners now that, at the time of their joining the course it was recognized, yet they cannot be given the benefit of such recognition and the certificates obtained by them would be futile, because during the pendency of the course it was derecognized by the State Government."
The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court was also cited in Harpal Singh's case, but was not relied upon on the ground that the State of Punjab had never recognised certificates of J.B.T. obtained from the State of Haryana. In view of the instructions of the State of Punjab contained in Annexure P/16, the view expressed in Harpal Singh's case cannot be accepted as correct. Net result would be that the said training course diploma obtained by the petitioner from the Haryana State which was recognised by the State of Punjab in view of the instructions contained in Annexure P/16, would continue to be recognised as such and the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Arts and Crafts teacher on compassionate grounds under State Government instructions dated April 18, 1973, could not be denied.
5. The present case was tossed from the one department to another for a number of years and because of technical objections having been raised by such departments, the petitioner was not appointed on priority basis on compassionate grounds, as stated above. The writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs. 2,000/-. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Arts and Crafts teacher forthwith if vacancy exists, otherwise to appoint her by creating another post.