1. Termination of ad hoc teacher after Screening Committee found him unfit for confirmation — Challenge to termination based on lack of notice under service rules. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 75
1997(2) Supreme 121
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.T. Nanavati, JJ.
State of Rajasthan -Appellant
versus
Dinesh Kumar Bharti -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 349 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16119 of 1994)
Decided on 20-1-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Aruneshwar Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Indra Makwana, Advocate.
Important Points
Rule 23A, requiring notice for termination of temporary government servants, is inapplicable to ad hoc employees screened for suitability by a committee under Rule 25, especially where the appointment did not require consultation with the Public Service Commission.
Subject
Employment Law - Termination of Employment
Act Referred
RAJASTHAN SERVICE RULES: R.23(a), R.25, R.6(b)(3)
SERVICE LAW: .
SERVICE LAW: .
Headnote
SERVICE LAW-Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951-Rule 23A-Appointment of ad hoc basis as teacher-Screening Committee constituted to regularise services-Respondent was found not fit to be confirmed-Order of termination of his services-Rule 23(2)(a) applied to case where consultation with Public Service Commission was necessary and Commission found Govt. servant not eligible to be confirmed-Prior notice in writing was needed only in such case-Respondent s case was not covered u/s 23A for obtaining concurrence of Public Service Commission-View of courts below holding termination illegal was incorrect. (Para 4)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether termination of an ad hoc teacher requires prior notice under Rule 23A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. (Para 2 )
3. Rule 23A applies to temporary servants appointed in consultation with the Public Service Commission, whereas the respondent was screened by a Committee under Rule 25. (Para 3 , 4 )
4. Notice requirements under Rule 23A are inapplicable to ad hoc employees whose suitability is determined by a Screening Committee rather than the Public Service Commission. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal allowed and the orders of the courts below set aside. (Para 5 )
6. Does Rule 23A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, require a three-month notice for the termination of all temporary government servants?
No. Rule 23A(2)(a) applies specifically to temporary government servants in continuous service for over three years who satisfy suitability requirements and were appointed in consultation with the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. (Para 3 , 4 )
7. Is a notice period required under Rule 23A when a teacher is terminated after being found unfit by a Screening Committee under Rule 25?
No. The court held that Rule 23A is inapplicable when a Screening Committee is used to adjudge suitability, as such cases do not require the concurrence of the Public Service Commission. (Para 4 )
ORDER
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for both the parties.
2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court made on November 4, 1992 in S.A. No. 175 of 1992. The learned Judge dismissed the second appeal on the ground of limitation. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, instead of remanding the matter, we think that it can be disposed of on merits. The respondent was appointed on ad hoc basis as a teacher on September 30, 1970. The Screening Committee constituted to regularise the services of the ad hoc teachers found that the respondent was not fit to be confirmed. On the basis thereof, the order of termination came to be made on May 8, 1974. It was challenged in the suit. Ultimately, when it was decreed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court, the High Court dismissed the second appeal on the ground of limitation. The District Judge relied upon Rule 23A of the RAJASTHAN SERVICE RULES , 1951 to hold that prior notice required by Rule 23A was not given to terminate the service. So the order is bad in law. Rule 6(b)(3) of the Rules provides thus :
"Rule 6(b)(3)-that a person holding any of the following grade I post in sections B, C, D, E and F or any of the posts in section "A" of the scheduled on 31-12-72 in an ad hoc/officiating/temporary capacity and who had continuously hold the said post or would have held any of these posts put FFp his deputation elsewhere, for a period not less than six months on 15.12.1971 and was working as such on the date of publication of these (amendment) Rules shall be screened by a committee referred to in Rule 25 , for adjudging his suitability for such post, provided he possesses the qualifications prescribed in the rules either for direct recruitment or for promotion or the prescribed qualification of the posts on the basis of which he was appointed in the ad hoc or officiating or temporary capacity on such post.."
3. Under Rule 25 , Screening Committee was appointed to adjudge the suitability of ad hoc teachers for regularisation. As a consequence of the above rule, the Screening Committee considered the persons holding posts on temporary or officiating basis or in ad hoc capacity who had continuously held the post for a period of not less than six months as on December 15, 1971 and were working as such on the date of the publication of the Amendment of the rules. They were required to be screened by a Committee constituted under Rule 25 to adjudge their suitability to the posts provided they possess the qualification prescribed under the Rule either for the direct recruitment or for promotion or the prescribed qualification of the posts on the basis of which they were appointed in ad hoc or officiating or temporary capacity. Admittedly, the Committee was constituted in 1974 under Rule 25 and the Committee came to the conclusion that the respondent was not fit to be confirmed. Rule 23A was inserted w.e.f. July 10, 1981. Rule 23A(2)(a) reads as under :
"The service of a temporary Government servant who has been in continuous Government service for more than three years and who satisfied the suitability in respect of age and qualifications prescribed for the post and has been appointed in consultation with the Rajasthan Public Service Commission where such liable to termination at any time by a notice of three months given in writing either by the Government servant to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the Government servant :
Provided that the service of any such Government servant may be terminated forthwith, and on such termination the Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of notice at the same rate at which he was drawing immediately before the termination of his service for the period by which such notice falls short of three months, as the case may be."
4. Therefore, Rule 23(2)(a) per
