LAKSHMANAN, CJ. - (1.) BY consent of both parties, both the appeals were taken up for final hearing. Both the appeals were preferred by Smt. Kulwant Kaur, the petitioner in Writ petitions No. 2973/94 and 1373/87. Writ Petition No. 1373/87 was filed by the appellant to quash the order dated 11. 5. 1987 and to stay the operation of the same during the pendency of the writ petition.
(2.) BY order dated 25. 11. 1983, the appellant was given appointment on temporary basis till the end of the academic session on the post of Teacher Gr. III by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Padampur and she was posted in Middle School, Village 1-CC. BY order dated 4. 5. 84 the services of the teachers mentioned therein were brought to end from the afternoon of 16. 5. 1984. The appellant was relieved. Once again the appellant was given appointment to the very post by order dated 30. 6. 84 on temporary basis for a period of 6 months or till selected teachers are available whichever is earlier. It was stated in the said order that the services of the appellant can be brought to end without any notice at any time. BY order dated 11. 5. 1987 once again the appellant's services were terminated because of the directions of the Director of Primary & Secondary Education dated 1. 7. 1986. According to the appellant a perusal of this direction dated 1. 7. 86 will go go show that this is in respect of fixation of the salary of the teachers possessed of Tailoring Diploma and it is said therein that those of the candidates who obtained diploma from Jharparkar Training College, Bombay and in respect of whom recognisation was given, cannot be given appointment in Primary schools under the control of the Panchayat Samiti as Tailoring Teacher's post is not there in the Panchayat Samiti. According to the appellant although the order dated 11. 5. 87 had been made but the same had not been formally served upon the appellant and no order releving her from service was made on 16. 5. 84 when her service was brought to end. It is the contention of the appellant that she does not possess diploma from Jharparkar Tailoring College, Bombay and was never appointed as Teacher in Tailoring and she is a matriculate and has a certificate in Arts and Crafts from the Department of Industrial Training from Government of Haryana. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the appellant preferred the writ petition on the grounds mentioned in the writ petition. It is submitted that the very assumption on the basis of which the services of the appellant had been brought to an end is that this is required to be done in pursuance of the direction dated 1. 7. 1986 which is in respect of the teachers possessed of Diploma in Tailoring from Jharparkar Tailoring College, Bombay and even assuming that it is applicable to the appellant, the services of the appellant could not be brought to an end until trained and duly selected teachers are available. The writ petition was admitted on 21. 5. 1987 by a Division Bench of this Court. The order dated 11. 5. 1987 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) was stayed by the Division Bench on 21. 5. 1987 itself and the same was confirmed on 12. 8. 1993 by this Court. A reply was filed by the non-petitioners denying the allegation that the services of the appellant petitioner were terminated vide order dated 11. 5. 1987 not on the direction issued by the Director, Rural Development on 1. 7. 86 and that the petitioner appellant was served with the order dated 11. 5. 87 and the petitioner left the school without taking delivery of the order and in her place new teacher was appointed. It is also submitted that the termination of the petitioner appellant was due to her not having requisite qualification for the teacher for Panchayat Samiti because she was having ITI Diploma which is not recognized in the State of Rajasthan for primary education. S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2973/94 was filed by the appellant to quash the order dt. 31. 5. 1994 and for a direction in terms of direction made in Moinuddin's case. We have already noticed that the impugned order date 11. 5. 87 was stayed by the High Court on 21. 5. 1987 and confirmed vide order dated 12. 8. 93. Thereupon the petitioner appellant produced marks-sheet to show that she obtained training in a two years course and aforesaid course contains subjects other than craft and despite the aforesaid once again order dated 31. 5. 1994 has been made terminating services of the appellant petitioner and that the same is being done due to the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Shyam Lal's case. The said order has been furnished to the appellant on 27. 6. 94. This said order is accompanied with a banker's cheque of Rs. 4,941/ -. According to the appellant before making this order no notice was given to the appellant to show cause as to why her services should not be terminated. Under these circumstances, the writ petition No. 2973/94 had been filed, stating that the Supreme Court judgment had nothing to do with the qualification possessed by the appellant and that the course which was in issue in the case before the Supreme Court was six months' course in a particular trade and as against this the course which the appellant had done is of two years' duration and was not confined to craft such as Tailoring. Thus, it is submitted that the whole assumption on the basis of which the order was made was incorrect. By order dated 6. 7. 94, this Court stayed the order dated 31. 5. 94 and the appellant was allowed to continue in service even if she had been relieved earlier. The said order was continued till the disposal of the writ petition. The writ petition was heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge in para 3 of the judgment observed as under:- "it is apparent that the petitioner does not hold requisite qualifications for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. III in the Panchayat Samiti and that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis and as such, she does not have any right over the post. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Shyam Lal Joshi (AIR 1994 SC 1409) while considering the cases of Primary School Teachers, who do not have the qualifications for appointment to the post of Primary School Teacher, the Supreme Court has held that their position is just that of an untrained Teacher and as they do not fulfil the qualifications required for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. III, their services cannot be continued. The petitioner's case is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Supreme Court. " In was argued before the learned Single Judge that the Director-cum-Special Secretary, Gramin Vikas & Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur had issued circulars on 27. 2. 1992 and 3. 4. 1993 whereby untrained teachers who were in job up to 16. 12. 1989 are directed to be given training and as such, unless the appellant is provided with this facility, her services could not have been terminated. The learned Judge in para 5 of his judgment has observed as follows:- "i have carefully gone through the circulars issued. All that which is said in the circulars is that the State Govt. has taken a decision that untrained Primary School Teachers in Panchayat Samities appointed on contract basis or as ad hoc and who were in service on the date 16. 12. 89, shall be given training by correspondence course, the training will be at the cost of the trainees. In fact, in the circular dated 3. 4. 93, it is specifically made clear that the appointment to the post shall be given after successful completion of the training by regular selection. Thus, the circular only gives a right to the petitioner as she being in service on 16. 12. 89 to equip herself with the qualifications and the State Govt. shall provide a facility for the same. The circular nowhere says that till the qualifications are not acquired by the Teachers serving in the Panchayat Samiti Schools, they shall be continued in service. "
(3.) FOR the reasons aforesaid the learned Judge dismissed both the writ petitions and aggrieved of the common order in the above two writ petitions, both the civil special appeals have been filed. In the appeal, it is submitted that the qualification which the appellant had obtained is from the Department of Industrial Training, Haryana and that the appellant had obtained training in two years course and the course contains subjects other than craft and that the appellant had secured 40 marks out of 100 in Educational Psychology School Organisation & Method of Teaching (theory) and 92 marks out of 150 in Practice of Teaching. The appellant also placed on record of the writ petition, the order dated 3. 4. 93 (Annexure-10) which contained a direction those teachers who are in service on 16. 12. 1989 appointed either on contract basis or on ad hoc basis shall be given training on their own expenses from the Education Institution at Udaipur. The appellant had also placed on record her marks sheet of the previous and final Art & Crafts Teachers Training Examination 1981 issued by the Department of Industrial Training Haryana. We have heard M. Mridul, learned Sr. Advocate for the appellant in both the cases and Shri Vijay Bishnoi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. It is alleged in para No. 3 of the memo of appeal that the appellant's counsel brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge the judgment rendered by this Court in D. B. Civil Special Appeal State of Rajasthan vs. Loombsingh and also brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, the decision rendered in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2072/1994 and 269 other petitions decided on 27. 5. 1994 and the consequent order made by the Government wherein it was said that consequent to these judgments Government has, after examining the question as to whether the training course conducted by Vidya Bhawan, Udaipur and Parshuram, Jaipur viz-a-viz BSCT or not and to find if there is any difference between them and if so whether the same can be undone by making candidates undergo a bridge course. The Government has decided that the services of those possessed of training course imparted by Vidya Bhawan, Udaipur and Parashuram, Jaipur who have been duly selected will not be terminated and if terminated, consequent to circular dated 7. 4. 94 will be taken back in service after an undertaking being taken from them that on being required they will have to pass the bridge course of specified duration in specified training centres on their own cost and on their failure so to do their services will be terminated. ;