- (1.) This judgment will dispose of Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 328 of 1983 and 756 of 1985, filed by the State of Haryana, as common question of law is involved in both these appeals. Facts in L.P.A. No. 328 of 1983 : Shiv Datt writ-petitioner, who is B.A. B.Ed. was appointed as Primary Education Officer in the Government Primary School, Ram Nagar, on 23rd July, 1975, for 6 months. Thereafter, he was appointed as J.B.T. teacher on 1st September, 1976 The minimum qualifications which are required for appointment as J.B.T Teachers are Matric and Diploma in Education. In the month of February, 1980 the State of Haryana had issued instructions that those teachers who had completed two years of service on 31st December, 1979, their services should be regularised. The petitioner had completed more than two years service on the said date and thus claimed regularisation on the basis of the instruction. The Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Kaithal sought clarification from the Headmaster, Government High School, Harigardh Bhorak, District Kurukshetra. The Headmaster instead of clarifying the matter, terminated the services of the petitioner on 31st March, 1980. The petitioner approached the Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Kaithal and District Education Officer, Kurukshetra that he was entitled to be regularised in view of the instructions as he had the requisite qualifications. It was the case of the petitioner that the District Education Officer directed the Sub-Divisional Education Officer and the Headmaster not to terminate the services of the writ petitioner, but the Headmaster did not care for that order. On 3rd July, 1980, the District Education Officer, Kurukshetra, issued general letter that those teachers who had completed two years of service on 31 December, 1979, and whose services had been terminated for one reason or the other after 1st Jan., 1980, be re-adjusted on vacant posts. In spite of this letter, the petitioner was not adjusted, which led to the filing of the writ petition.
(2.) The stand taken by the respondent in the written statement was that since the petitioner did not fulfil the minimum qualifications, therefore, he could not be regularised. It is not understood as if a J.B.T. teacher the qualifications were only Matric and Diploma in Education, how a person who had qualifications of B.A. B.Ed. was not to be treated as qualified. In fact the petitioner was having higher qualifications. On this basis, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the termination order. Facts in L.P.A. No. 756 of 1985 :
(3.) The facts in this case are similar to the one in L.P.A. No. 328 of 1983, with the only difference that the learned Single Judge in this case only directed the State Government to consider the case for regularisation of the writ petitioner; whereas in L.P.A. No. 328 of 1983, the relief granted was that the termination order was set aside.;