B. L. Yadav, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is the widow of one Ram Prakash Srivastava, who died in harness as Head Master in the Primary Basic School, Arail, Allahabad. THE petitioner, being widow of the Head Master, who died in harness, made an application to the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Allahabad, respondent no. 2 under Rule 5 of the Employment of Dependents of Government Servants, Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (for short the Rules of 1974). As the petitioner was a widow, hence she came within the definition of 'family' as given under Rule 2 (2-Ga). Respondent no. 2 directed the respondent no. 1 by his letter dated 15-3-78 (Annexure 1 to the petition), to appoint the petitioner on the post of 'Dai' in some Basic School. THE petitioner was accordingly appointed by order dated 21-3-78 (Annexure 2 to the petition), as Dai in Primary Girls School, Attersuiya, in the pay scale of Rs. 165-2-185 on a temporary basis. She was, however, confirmed on that post by order dated 26-5-79 (Annexure 3) passed by Basic Shiksha Adhikshika, respondent no. 1. THE petitioner received the order dated 16-5-87 (Annexure 4 to the petition), passed by respondent no. 1 indicating that her services have been terminated as she has re-married and she must hand over charge to the Incharge, Head Mistress. THE petitioner has filed the present petition for a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 16-5-87, terminating her services.
(2.) SRI M. B. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner was appointed in view of the provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974 and there was no provision under that rule that the services of an employee appointed under that Rule can be terminated if she remarries. There was no such condition attached even in the letter of appointment (Annexure 2 to the petition), given to the petitioner. It was further urged that there was no such provision to terminate the services of an employee employed under the aforesaid Rule of 1974 neither in U. P. Basic Education Act, 1972, nor in U. P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment & Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and Group D Employees) Rules, 1984, (for short the Employees Rules, 1984). Under Rule 21 of the Employees Rules, 1984, the provision was that no clerk or Group D employee of a recognized school may be discharged or removed or dismissed from service or reduced in rank or subjected to demotion in emoluments or served with a notice of termination of service except with the prior approval in writing of the District Basic Education Officer. Rule 23 of the Employees Rules 1984 deals with disciplinary proceedings of Group D employees and indicates that the rules applicable to an Assistant Teacher of a Basic School shall be applicable. There is the U. P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High School) Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers Rules, 1978 (for short the Rules of 1978). Rule 16 of the Rules of 1978 deals with the disciplinary proceedings and provides that in respect of disciplinary proceedings and punishment to be inflicted in such proceedings in respect of a teacher or an Assistant Teacher, as the case may be, of a recognized school shall be governed by the rules applicable to Head Master and Assistant Teacher of a Basic School established or maintained by the Board. But the U. P. Basic Education Teachers Service Rules, 1981, does not make any provision for disciplinary proceedings. In view of this provision it was urged that there was no provision for terminating the services of the petitioner in case she re-married. It was further urged that the petitioner has, in fact, not re-married, but some anti social elements committed a rape on her in view of her helplessness as she was the only member in her family, and she has made a report and an application to that effect. On behalf of the respondents and the State, the Standing Counsel urged that the petitioner's services have correctly been terminated, and she was appointed under the Rules in place of her deceased husband, hence it was implicit in her appointment that she would not re-marry. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that there appears to be substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. As the petitioner was employed as a 'Dai' in Class 'D' category and her services were governed by the service rules framed for the purpose, the respondents cannot act beyond what has been provided under the rules.
(3.) IN General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari, AIR 1962 SC 36, it was observed as follows :- "If that be so, there would be no difficulty in holding that the matters relating to employment must include all matters in relation to employment both prior, and subsequent, to the employment which are incidental to the employment and form part of the terms and conditions of such employment." In Air India v. Naresh Meerza, AIR 1981 SC 1829, it was held as follows : "The service conditions and regulations of an employee prevail unless any particular service regulations or rules is held ultra vires, invalid or discriminatory." ;