VERMA, J. - (1.) VIDE Annex. 5 the petitioner was offered appointment of Teacher Grade III on 9. 1. 1987 on the basis of her qualifications i. e. B. Sc. , M. A. and B. Ed. She had passed B. Ed. from a college said to be affiliated with Hindi University, Allahabad. She was confirmed on 25. 1. 1990 on the said post. She wanted to continue her further Post-graduate studies in M. Ed. from Himachal University and sought the permission of the department. Her application was not forwarded on the ground that B. Ed. degree passed by her was not recognised as yet by the UGC. The petitioner being alarmed of such a situation, of which she had no earlier knowledge, joined B. Ed. course once again from Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak which is duly recognised by the UGC. She was successful and got the degree in 1992.
(2.) AFTER the petitioner had even obtained the regular degree duly recognised from the M. D. University, Rohtak (Haryana) (assuming that earlier degree was not recognised by the UGC), the petitioner was threatened of termination of her service on the ground that initial appointment made to her in the year 1987 was not on the basis of the degree recognised by the UGC and submits that while offering the appointment to the petitioner, all documents were duly checked and department must have verified the documents before giving appointment. She further submits that she had applied for further course of M. Ed. which shows that the petitioner was of the bonafide belief that earlier B. Ed. Degree obtained from Allahabad was recognised. Threatened with the termination of services or any action against the petitioner, the present petition has been filed. On the basis of the stay granted by this court, the petitioner is still in service i. e. she has already put in about 14 years of service. Even though the petitioner was in possession of the B. Ed. degree in the year 1992 which was duly recognised by the UGC, the respondent states in the reply that she had no right to continue for the reason that at the time of her appointment, her earlier degree obtained form Hindi University Allahabad was not recognised by the UGC or even by the State of Rajasthan. Even though in the written statement it is stated that the appointment was subject to the verification of the degree but no such condition has been mentioned in the appointment letter, copy of which has been attached. The petitioner relies on a judgment of this court in the case of Gopal Prasad Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1), wherein the service of said Gopal Prasad Sharma was terminated on the ground that Diploma in Tailoring obtained by him was not recognised and was not equivalent to BSTC and it was observed as under:- `be that as it may, it is now an admitted fact that the petitioner is a Graduate in Commerce and he is also a Post Graduate in Commerce and also passed the Teachers Training called B. Ed. and it cannot be said the petitioner is not a trained teacher now. Apart from the above facts, the petitioner teaching of primary classes for 14 years. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner when recruited fulfilled all the required qualifications and all the qualifications were recognised by the State Government, Once certain qualifications are recognised and some benefit is bestowed on citizen for a period of 14 years and if such type be withdrawn legally, can it be withdrawn legally, can it be said that the clock is to be put back 12 years back, thus, affecting the vested right of a citizen and in the present case, the petitioner had given his precious 12 years to the respondent and also become Post Graduate and obtained B. Ed. Degree i. e. Bachelor Degree in Education. The Government was also aware of this fact that even though initially the persons may have been untrained teachers but if they had served for 10 years, it was decided to regularise their services and to treat them as trained teachers and it was also decided by the Government to impart training of B. S. T. C. to such teachers which fact is not denied in view of the documents attached with the writ petition. In pursuance of such decision the Government did impart such training to the untrained teachers and retained them in service instead of giving a fatal below to their livelihood. The petitioner has been treated differently vis-a-vis the other teachers. ' From the above-said facts, it is clear: (1) that the petitioner was offered appointment on the basis of B. Ed. degree as was possessed by her; (2) that when doubt was created about the recognition of the degree of B. Ed. , the petitioner did obtained another B. Ed. degree from M. D. University Rohtak which is recognised; (3) that the petitioner is continuing in service for last 14 years; (4) there is no complaint about the working or the efficiency of the petitioner as a teacher. and, therefore, in view of the above facts it shall not be appropriate for the State to say so now that even though the petitioner is possessing recognised B. Ed. Degree and has put in 14 years of service but still taking the cause of Action of 1987 and totally ignoring the subsequent developments, the plea of the respondent cannot be accepted for dispensing with the services of the petitioner. The petitioner is continuing is service right from 1987 and as such it will be unjust and not appropriate to uphold the order of the respondent for giving a fatal blow on the livelihood of the petitioner when she must have become over age by now for any appointment. For the discussions and reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs. . ;