1. Termination of teacher's services — Non-recognition of training diploma from another state — Challenge to termination after long-term service and confirmation. (Para 3 , 5 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 906
1996(4) Supreme 599
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Madan Mohan Punchhi and K.T. Thomas, JJ.
Smt. Santosh Yadav -Appellant
versus
State of Haryana & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7748 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12879 of 1990)
Decided on 2-5-1996
Important Points
Termination of service based on a non-recognized qualification is arbitrary and illegal if the employee had attained regularity in service and was covered by administrative relaxations exempting those appointed on an ad-hoc basis prior to the implementation of the restrictive policy.
Subject
Employment - Termination of Employment
Act Referred
Headnote
Service Law-Order terminating services of appellant, a teachress, that she had secured her Teacher s Training from outside State Institution not recognised by Haryana Government-Appellant was appointed in 1980 and her terms were kept renewed-She was confirmed in 1984-Appellant was covered under relaxation issued by State Government itself-It was wrong and arbitrary to deprive her of her job-Impugned order was liable to be quashed. (Para 6)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Termination based on non-recognition of diploma versus claim of regularity in service and applicability of relaxation instructions. (Para 3 , 5 )
3. Termination was arbitrary as the appellant had attained regularity in service and was protected by a relaxation clause for ad-hoc employees appointed before a specific date. (Para 6 )
4. Termination of service based on qualification irregularities is impermissible once the employee has attained regularity in service and is covered by applicable relaxation guidelines. (Para 6 )
5. Termination order quashed — Reinstatement with back wages, seniority, promotion, and other service benefits. (Para 6 , 7 )
6. Whether an employee can be terminated for qualification deficiencies after attaining regularity in service?
No. If an employee was acceptable at the time of appointment and subsequently confirmed in service, terminating them later based on the same qualification deficiency is considered arbitrary. (Para 6 )
7. Whether administrative instructions banning certain qualifications apply retrospectively to existing ad-hoc employees?
Such instructions may be subject to relaxations. In this case, a clarification specified that the ban on diplomas from non-recognized institutions did not apply to those working on stop-gap or ad-hoc bases before a specific date. (Para 6 )
8. What remedies are granted when a termination order is quashed as arbitrary?
The court may order reinstatement to the original position with back wages and the restoration of all service benefits, including seniority, promotion, and increments. (Para 6 )
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. The High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellant in limine.
3. The appellant had put to challenge order dated 27.3.1990 (Annexure-H) whereby she was conveyed by the School authorities under whom she was working as a Hindi Teachress, that since she had secured her Teacher s Training from the Secondary Education Board, U.P., Bareilly, which was not recognized by the Haryana Government, she had to be relieved from her duties thenceforth with immediate effect. By one stroke of pen, her long durated service spanning from 21.10.1980 onwards, which began on six monthly basis, (ignoring small gaps here and there ) till the year 1990 was wiped out; whereas undeniably other Teachers similarly situated on six months basis, had been able to mature as permanent teachers entitled to continue in service. The lone disquieting factor was that the appellant had a diploma which did not have the approval of the Haryana Government and yet in laxity teachers had been appointed, in order to draw work out of them, to meet the State s educational needs.
4. It was for the first time on 7.7.1981 (copy of instruction placed on file) that the Directorate of Education, Haryana woke up from its slumber informing all concerned that it had come to the notice of the Department that persons who had obtained their teacher s training diploma/certificate from other States were being recruited or appointed and it need be notified that the method was irregular. It was therefore desired that in future only those persons shall be recruited who have obtained their teachers training diploma/certificate from Haryana Education Department. All concerned were further required to strictly adhere to these instructions and also to bring all these to the notice of all the appointing authorities under the jurisdiction of the Government as well as non-government (but recognised) institutions for strict compliance.
5. It is on the basis of the aforesaid letter dated 7.7.1981 that services of the appellant were terminated on 27.7.1990.
6. It is not denied that the appellant was taken in service on the basis of the diploma/certificate she possessed, having obtained it from the Secondary Education Board. U.P., Bareilly and that her six months terms were kept renewed from time to time, ignoring small gaps in between, as was the pattern. Therefore we fail to see that when she was acceptable in 1980 and her terms were kept renewed from time to time uptil 22.5.1982, and onwards, whereafter she was confirmed in the year 1984, how could her services be terminated in the year 1990, when she had attained regularity in service. It is significant to note that the letter dated 7.7.1981 was itself watered down on 22.7.1981 (Annexure A) clarifying that the ban imposed on recruitment of persons who had obtained their diplomas/certificates from non-recognised institutions, would not apply to those who were working as teachers on stop-gap/adhoc/six months basis before the summer vacation of 1981. Concededly, the appellant occupied that position as she was working on six monthly basis immediately before the summer vacation of 1991; (sic) 1981. Thus, on account of such relaxation being available for her and she having earned regularity in her service, it was wholly wrong and arbitrary on the part of the Education Department and the School to have deprived her of her job. Thus, the impugned order dated 27.3.1990 (Annexure H) relieving the appellant from her dutines as Hindi Teachress with immediate effect, is quashed, putting her back to position with back wages and regularity of service, including other service benefits such as seniority, promotion, increments etc. as would have normally been due to her.
7. The appeal thus stands allowed in these terms.
Appeal allowed.
*******
