IMPORTANT POINT
Possession of an essential educational qualification for the post is mandatory for obtaining the right to continue in the post.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW—Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishad Service Rules, 1959—Conditions for appointment including basic educational qualifications for Primary School Teacher—Minimum Qualification was Matriculation and Basic Short Training Certificate Course—Respondent was appointed Grade-III teacher in November, 1983—Her services were terminated in 1984 but she was appointed on temporary basis—Services were terminated on basis of circular issued by Director, Primary and Secondary Education directing termination of services of temporary teachers who possessed only diploma in Tailoring—Respondent filed writ and order of stay was passed with direction that services of such teachers should not be terminated but they should be sent for obtaining requisite training—Services of all teachers who did not possess requisite qualification were terminated on 7-4-1994—Respondent filed another writ—Single Judge dismissed both writs—Division Bench allowed appeal noticing—That State had issued circular on 30-8-2000 in relation to teachers who underwent service training and acquired qualification as vocational teacher for grant of promotion—Appeal—Respondent did not possess requisite qualification—Only because the order of termination of service was stayed and respondent was allowed to continue in service, she could not be said holding the post validly—It was not a case where equity was in favour of respondent—Impugned judgment could not be sustained.
Held : The services of the Respondent had been terminated on the ground that she lacked essential educational qualification. The High Court passed an interim order in her favour. Such orders were being passed on the ground that the State had been making discrimination amongst the teachers in the matter of sending them for obtaining training; such in-service training being permissible. However, we are not concerned with such a situation in this case. The Respondent herein did not possess the requisite qualification. Only because the order of termination of service of Respondent was directed to be stayed and in obedience of the interim orders passed by the High Court, she was allowed to continue in services, the same, in our opinion, can not lead to the conclusion that she had been validly holding the post or the order of termination was bad in law. After Shyam Lal Joshi, (1994) 1 SCC 593, it is not disputed that the teachers were required to possess a Short Training Certificate. As the respondent did not possess such essential qualification, she has no legal right to continue in service. The order of termination passed, both in 1987 and 1994, which were the subject matter of the Writ Petition No. 1383/87 (being against the order dated 11.5.87) and Writ Petition No. 2973/94 (being against the order dated 31.5.1994), cannot, thus, be held to be bad in law.(Paras 12 & 13)
Actus Curiae neminem gravabit is a well known maxim. The orders passed by the appellant could not, thus, have been directed to be set aside by the High Court on the grounds stated therein. The High Court did not arrive at a finding that the Respondent was possessed of basic essential qualification, both as regard general education as well as the training. It is also not a case where equity is in favour of the Respondent. Only because an interim order was passed in favour of the Respondent, the same would not mean that despite the fact that she did not possess requisite qualifications, her services would be allowed to continue. Even the old Rules were not applicable in her case. The matter would have been different had she acquired the requisite qualification prior to issuance of order of termination in 1994. Admittedly, she had not by then completed her training. Even at that point of time, she was not possessed of the Short Training Certificate. Her services had thus, rightly been terminated and in that view of the matter, purported acquisition of qualification by her in 1996 would be of no significance.(Paras 15 & 16)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—The State of Rajasthan enacted Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Act, 1959 (‘the Act’, for short). The Respondent was appointed as a Grade-III teacher on 25.11.1983 by the Panchayat Samiti, Padampur. The terms and conditions of her appointment were governed by Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishad Service Rules, 1959 (‘the Rules’, for short). The Schedule appended to the said Rules lay down the conditions for appointment, including basic educational qualification, as also the eligibility criteria therefor which read as under :

S.No.Name of Source of Qualification Remarksthe Post Recruitment and and pay with percentage experience Promotion scale––––––––––––––––––– for direct ––––––––––––––––– Direct By recruitment Post Qualifi Recruit- promo- from cation/ ment tion which Experi- promo- ence for tion will promo- be consi- tion dered

5.Primary100% – Senior – –Candidates who School Secondary possessed Secon-Teacher with basis dary or Hr. Secon- STC coursedary examination prior to 1990 shall also be eligible

2. The minimum qualification required for the post of Primary School Teacher was the Matriculation and Basic Short Training Certificate (BSTC) course. The services of the Respondent were terminated in the year 1984 but she was reappointed on a temporary basis. The Director, Primary and Secondary Education issued a circular directing termination of the services of temporary teachers who possessed only diploma in Tailoring. The services of the Respondent pursuant to the said circular had also been terminated, relying on the said circular by the appellant herein, by an order dated 11.5.1987. She filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court wherein an order of stay was passed. She was allowed to continue in service in view of the said order of stay. The question as to whether, having regard to the fact that the authorities of the State Government themselves had not been sending the Assistant Teachers for training, some directions were issued by the High Court to the effect that the services of such teachers should not be terminated, but, they should be sent for obtaining the requisite training.

3. The question as to whether the National Training Certificate in Tailoring or any other craft should be treated to be equivalent to Short Training Certificate or not, came up for consideration of this Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Shyam Lal Joshi and Ors. [(1994) 1 SCC 593], wherein the relevant rule, which is as under, was noticed;

“Secondary with Basic School Training Certificate (BSTC) or a training qualification recognized as equivalent to BSTC by State Government.”

This Court held :

“...A distinction has to be drawn between a general teacher who has received complete training and is in a position to teach all the subjects and a teacher who has received training in a particular craft and can, therefore, properly teach that particular craft only. Under the relevant rules for appointment to the post of Primary School Teacher it is necessary to have BSTC or a training qualification recognised as equivalent to BSTC by the State Government. The BSTC course is a two years’ training course wherein the training is given in various subjects. The NTC is granted by the ITI after a course of training in a particular craft. By order dated November 8, 1979, the State Government recognised the NTC given by ITI for teaching vocational subjects in Secondary Schools in certain specified crafts, namely, wood work, tailoring, leather work and spinning & weaving. This recognition is limited to teaching the aforesaid vocational subjects only. In the circular dated August 6, 1984, reference has been made to the order dated December 11, 1974, whereby certificates of Industrial Examinations of the Rajasthan Government were recognised as equivalent to Arts and Handicraft Examinations of Vidya Bhawan, Udaipur, and it was directed that since

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 387

IMPORTANT POINTPossession of an essential educational qualification for the post is mandatory for obtaining the right to continue in the post.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Possession of an essential educational qualification for the post is mandatory for obtaining the right to continue in the post.