GARG, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 10. 4. 2001 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ order or direction the impugned order dated 18. 2. 97 (Annex. P/7) passed by Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Nimbaheda (respondent No. 3) by which the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that she was pregnant be quashed.
(2.) THE facts as put forward by the petitioner are as under: (i) That the petitioner possessed requisite qualifications to be appointed on the post of Primary School Teacher, Gr. III under the provisions of Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. (ii) That an advertisement dated 2. 7. 96 was issued inviting applications for 425 posts of Primary School Teacher. THE petitioner also submitted an application form duly filled in up within stipulated time before the competent authority which was verified and the same was found to be in order. (iii) That a select list was prepared by the district Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad, Chittorgarh (respondent No. 2) in which name of the petitioner was placed at serial No. 183 out of 425 candidates who were selected. the petitioner was called for interview vide letter dated 18. 9. 96 (Annex. P/1) and after the interview and verification of the documents from the originals, a final select list was prepared in which again the name of the petitioner was placed at serial No. 183 out of 425 candidates. THE respondent No. 2 while exercising powers conferred under Section 89 (6) of the Act of 1994, selected the petitioner and the petitioner was allotted for appointment to Panchayat Samiti, Nimbaheda. In accordance with the provisions of Act of 1994, an order of appointment dated 21. 12. 96 (Annex. P/2) appointing the petitioner on the post of Teacher Grade III on probation for a period of two years was issued. In this order of appointment, the name of the petitioner has been shown at serial No. 6. (iv) That thereafter a medical certificate dated 31. 12. 96 (Annex. P/3) was issued by the Incharge Medical Officer, Nimbaheda whereby the petitioner was declared medically fit to be appointed on the post of Teacher Grade III. (v) That thereafter an order dated 1. 1. 97 (Annex. P/4) was issued by the Vikas Adhikari (respondent No. 3) directing the Head Master, Primary School, Sangari that the documents of the petitioner had been verified, therefore, she may be taken on duty and the information to this effect may also be submitted to respondent No. 3. (vi) That a notice dated 12. 2. 97 (Annex. P/5) was issued to the petitioner stating therein that as per the medical certificate, the present position of the petitioner was shown NIL, but it was felt that she was pregnant, and therefore, she was directed to submit a fresh medical certificate of a Female Medical Officer within three days. (vii) In compliance of aforesaid direction, a medical certificate dated 13. 2. 97 (Annex. P/6) was submitted by the petitioner and that was issued by a gynecologist and that certificate reads as under: " It is certify that Manju Menariya having pregnancy, according to her statement her LMP is 17. 8. 96 and expected date of delivery will be 24. 5. 97. At present according to examination she is pregnant and size of utrus is 24 vol. i. e. 6 months pregnancy otherwise she is normal and fit to do her duties. " (viii) That after receiving the medical certificate dated 13. 2. 97 (Annex. P/6), the impugned order dated 18. 2. 97 (Annex. P/7) was issued by Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Nimbaheda by which services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner was in violation of the Rules and and she submitted a wrong certificate on the point that though she was pregnant, but this fact was not mentioned in the earlier certificate (Ex. P/3) dated 13. 12. 96. Hence, this writ petition with the abovementioned prayer. In this writ petition, the following submissions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner: (i) That termination of services of petitioner is a major penalty and thus without giving an opportunity of hearing and without making compliance of the Rules, the order dated 18. 2. 97 (Annex. P/7) is without jurisdiction and the same should be set aside as principles of natural justice have been violated in this case. (ii) That under the Act of 1994 or the Rules of 1996, nowhere it is provided that if a female candidate is pregnant at the time of appointment, she could not be said to be eligible for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III and because of this reason also, the order dated 18. 2. 97 (Annex. P/7) is without jurisdiction and illegal and should be set aside. No reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents. I have heard both and perused the record. There is no dispute on the point that after the appointment was given to the petitioner on the post of Teacher Grade III, she was asked to submit medical certificate and the medical certificate dated 31. 12. 96 (Annex. /3) was submitted by the petitioner and in that certificate it was shown that nothing abnormality was found and in that certificate the present position was shown "nil".
(3.) THROUGH notice dated 12. 2. 97, the respondent No. 3 came to know that the petitioner was a pregnant lady, therefore, respondent No. 3 asked her to get her medical examination afresh by a female doctor and she submitted medical certificate dated 13. 2. 97 (Annex. P/6) on 13. 2. 97 in which she was found pregnant by six months and apart from that she was found fit to do the duties and the contents of medical certificate dated 13. 2. 97 (Annex. P/6) have already been quoted above at page 3. After going through the relevant provisions of the Act of 1994 and the Rules of 1996, there is no provision which debars a pregnant lady to be appointed on the post of Teacher Grade III. Merely because in the medical certificate Ex. P/3 dated 31. 12. 96 she was not shown pregnant and later on she was found pregnant through another certificate Ex. P/6 dated 13. 2. 97, it does not mean that she has concealed such fact which affects her bonafides. Becoming pregnant is usual phenomena of a married lady and from this point of view also, if she is found pregnant, her services cannot be terminated merely on the ground that she was pregnant. Not only this, after perusal of Medical certificate dated 13. 2. 97 (Annex. 6), it also reveals that the lady doctor had also opined that she was fit to join her duties, meaning thereby she could have discharged her duties. Therefore, in absence of specific rule that pregnant lady could not have been appointed on the post of Teacher Grade III, the impugned order dated 18. 2. 97 (Annex. P/7) by which services of the petitioner were terminated is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. Further physical deficiency pertaining to one's body and the fact of becoming pregnant does not amount to deficiency pertaining to women's body. Therefore, to say that since the petitioner was pregnant lady, therefore, she could not discharge her duties because of physical deficiency is absolutely wrong conception and cannot be accepted. ;