SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE appellant-petitioner Smt. Premlata Gaur, Asstt. Teacher, Government Primary School, Harijan Basti, Jodhpur had filed writ petition (No. 1287/95) before this Court challenging the impugned order dated 8. 10. 74 (Annex. 3) passed by the Dy. Inspector of Schools (Girls), Jodhpur fixing her salary at Rs. 105/-per month with effect from 1. 10. 1974 and also order dated 8. 10. 74 (Annex. 4) whereby deduction at the rate of Rs. 35/-has been ordered to be made from her salary every month on the ground that excess salary was paid to her.
(2.) SEVERAL contentions were raised in the main writ petition by the petitioner. One of them was that in similar Writ Petition No. 1109/94, filed by Smt. R. Mathur against the State of Rajasthan & Others (1) the learned Single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble Mr. V. S. Kokje, J.) was pleased to allow the writ petition on 8. 9. 94. Therefore, this petition be also allowed and impugned orders at Annex.-3 and 4 be quashed and set aside. Initially the petition came up for admission before our brother Justice V. S. Kokje on 10. 5. 1995 and in view of His Lordship's order in Smt. R. Mathur's case (supra), notice was ordered to be issued to the respondents making it returnable by 25. 5. 95. Thereafter, Shri R. L. Jangid appeared for the respondents and the matter was adjourned from time to time by different learned Single Judges of this Court. Ultimately, after hearing Mr. Mathur for the petitioner and Mr. M. R. Singhvi for the respondents, the learned Single Judge of this Court (Dr. B. S. Chauhan, J.) dismissed writ petition (No. 1287/95) filed by the petitioner (present appellant) only on the ground of delay and laches in filing the petition late, without going into the merits of the case. The same is challenged by the appellant-petitioner in this special appeal. Learned counsel Shri Bohra appearing for the respondents submitted that the learned Single Judge was wholly justified in dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner on the ground of delay and laches. He has, therefore, submitted that this Court should not interfere in such a case. In support of his submission, he has relied upon Single Bench judgment, delivered by one of us (Hon'ble Mr. B. J. Shethna, J.) in the case of R. S. R. T. C. , Jaipur vs. S. T. A. T. , Jaipur & Ors. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid judgment has no application on the facts of this case. In that case of R. S. R. T. C. , notice was ordered to be issued by another learned Single Judge and it was tried to be cited as a precedent by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. That submission of the learned counsel was not accepted because, in that case, the petitioner was not able to successfully explain the gross delay in filing the petition late. Mr. Bohra then relied upon Supreme Court decision in the case of Bhoop Singh vs. Union of India and others In Bhoop Singh's case, the petitioner was appointed as Constable in Delhi Armed Police in 1964. Large number of constables participated in a mass-agitation on April 14, 1967. Their services were terminated on that account without specifying reasons. Because of the demand made by some Members of Parliament many dismissed constables were taken back in service as fresh entrants. But, some of them were not taken back in service. Writ petitions were filed in Delhi High Court in 1969 and 1970 by those constables who were not taken back in service which were allowed by the High Court in October 1975 and orders of termination of those persons were quashed. Later on, some other constables filed writ petitions in 1978 which were also allowed rejecting the objection raised on the ground of delay and laches. Another set of similarly dismissed constables then filed writ petitions before the Delhi High Court and challenged the termination in 1978. Those were transferred to C. A. T. which allowed the petitions. The Delhi Administration preferred appeals against the order passed by the C. A. T. which were also dismissed. In 1989, Bhoop Singh filed original application before the C. A. T. praying for reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits on the ground that his case and claim are similar to that of those constables who had succeeded. The same was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground of gross delay and laches as no explanation whatsoever was offered for filing the application late, after a period of 22 years. On the above facts in Bhoop Singh's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: " It is expected of a Government servant who has a legitimate claim to approach the Court for the relief he seeks within a reasonable period, assuming no fixed period of limitation applies. This is necessary to avoid dislocating the administrative set-up after it has been functioning on a certain basis for years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . This is a material fact to be given due weight while considering the argument of discrimination in the present case for deciding whether the petitioner is in the same class as those who challenged their dismissal several years earlier and were consequently granted the relief of reinstatement. "
(3.) WE respectfully bow down to the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. But, in our considered opinion, the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhoop Singh's case (supra) has no relevance at all in the present context. In the instant case, the petitioner was an Asstt. Teacher. She was appointed as Asstt. Teacher on 21. 6. 1972. When she was appointed she was fully qualified to be appointed as Asstt. Teacher. Thereafter, order was issued by the Dy. Secretary, General Administration Department, Jaipur to complete one-year training of B. S. T. C. for appointment as Teacher (Grade-III) and it was also ordered that those who will not complete the said one-year training of B. S. T. C. will be entitled to receive salary payable to an untrained Teacher (Annex. 2 ). The petitioner did not complete the one-year training and, for that reason, she was declared untrained Teacher (Grade-III) (Annex. 3 ). In pursuance of the aforesaid order at Annex.-3, Rs. 35/-per month were ordered to be deducted from the salary of the petitioner i. e. , from October 1974. It may be stated that though the impugned orders at Annex.-3 and 4 were passed on 8. 10. 1974, nothing was done in the matter. However, another Teacher (Grade-III) challenged the same in 1984 before this High Court. There was also a delay of 10 years in filing writ petition (No. 1110/84) late but no such objection regarding delay and laches was raised by the respondents and, in our opinion rightly so, as time and again held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the State Government should not raise such technical plea of delay and laches. The learned Single Judge of this Court ultimately decided the case on merits and held that the impugned orders were bad and no recovery can be effected. The said judgment was pronounced on 8. 9. 94. It may be stated that the respondents have accepted the said judgment of the learned Single Judge and did not carry the matter further. ;