N.L. Tibrewal, J. - (1.) The petitioner is challenging her termination order dated, 12th May 1995 (Annexure-10) passed by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Khetri, district Jhunjhunu.
(2.) In order to appreciate the real controversy in the matter, it is necessary to give the facts in brief which are relevant- The petitioner was initially appointed as Teacher Gr. III after being duly selected by the Rajasthan Panchayat and Local Body Subordinate Service Commissioner, Jaipur. The decision of the Commission was conveyed to the Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Jhalara-patan, by the District Employees-Varg Samiti, Jhalawar vide its communication dated, 6th June, 1978 (Annex.1). In pursuance to that, the petitioner was regularly appointed as Teacher Grill vide order dated 1.7.78 issued by the Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Jhalra-patan, district Jhalawar The appointment was on probation of two years. She was, thereafter, confirmed w.e.f. 4.7.80 vide order dated, August 6,1981 (Annex.3). It is note-worthy that the status of the petitioner was that of un-trained Teacher. The services of the petitioner were, thereafter, transferred from Panchayat Samiti, Jhalra-patan to Panchayat Samiti, Khetri on or about 6th November, 1981. As per the petitioner, she passed B.Ed. examination by correspondence course from Maithili Vishwavidhyapeeth, Central University, Darbhanga, Bihar. On her passing B.Ed. examination vide order date, 13.10.89, the respondent No.3 granted regular pay scale of Teacher Gr.lll w.e.f. 20th August, 1985 vide order dated 13.10.89 (Annex.4) and thereafter, vide letter dated 13.7.92 (Annex.5) the respondent No.3, Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Khetri, intimated to the petitioner that B.Ed. degree of Maithili University, Darbhanga was not recognised by the State Government, as such, the payment of arrears from 20.8.84 to June 1990 was being stopped and that the arrears since July 1990 to September 1990 amounting to Rs. 7073/- paid to the petitioner was recoverable and similarly, the payment from October 1991 to June 1992 was also recoverable and in pursuance to the said letter deduction of Rs. 100/- per month from the salary of the petitioner was ordered by the Development Officer vide order dated 8.9.92 (Annex.6) and by the said order it was also directed that the petitioner shall be paid fixed salary at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per month as per order dated, 23.2.91 of the Special Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan. Then a memorandum along with the charge-sheet under ' Rule-7 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules was served to the petitioner leveling the following charges ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... 3. The petitioner replied to the charge-sheet vide her communication dated, 20.12.93. 4. Feeling aggrieved by not granting regular pay scale of a trained Teacher, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1261/94. In the said writ petition, the petitioner stated that she was otherwise entitled to get regular pay scale of a trained teacher after completing 10 years of service as per Government policy declared in various Circulars and as such, she was entitled to get the same from 4.7.88. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated, April 18, 1994 directing the respondents to grant regular pay scale which she was entitled after completion of ten years as per Circular dated, 19.12.92. It appears that the direction of this Court given in the aforesaid writ petition was not complied with inspite of representation made by the petitioner, as such, she gave a notice through her counsel on 7.4.1994 for initiating contempt proceedings and in fact, a competent petition is said to have been filed on 24th April 1995. Thereafter, the petitioner's services have been terminated vide impugned order dated, 12th May, 1995 (Annex.5). 5. Learned counsel contended that she was appointed as an untrained teacher after her regular selection by the Rajasthan Panchayat and Subordinate Service Commissions in the year 1978 and after completing the period of probation, she was confirmed w.e.f. 4th July 1980. Learned counsel contended that admittedly, the petitioner has not got her appointment either on mis-statement or on the basis of false document on certificate. Learned counsel therefore contended that even if for the sake of argument, it is accepted that the petitioner was given regular pay scale w.e.f. 1984 on the basis of B.Ed. certificate issued by the Maithili Vishwa-vidhyapeeth and the said certificate is not recognised by the State Government, then too her termination was bad and at the most, the order granting regular pay scale w.e.f. 1984 could be withdrawn. With regard to the charge of the aforesaid certificate being forged one, a departmental enquiry was pending against the petitioner and before any finding could be recorded against her, her service has been terminated without any notice. Learned counsel also contended that the impugned order terminating service of the petitioner has been passed by the respondent No.3 as the petitioner has initiated contempt proceedings in this Court for non-compliance of the order passed in the writ petition. 6. On the other hand, Mr. B.C. Chirania appearing for the respondents, contended that the B.Ed. degree obtained by the petitioner from Maithili Vishwavidhyapeeth Darbhanga (Bihar) was not recognised by the State Government and that the said degree is a forged one. Shri Chirania in this connection has placed reliance on a decision of this Court dated 17.2.1994 rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 387/1994, Shankar Lal v. State of Rajasthan . 7. I have given my careful consideration to the above submissions. So far as the factual aspect is concerned, there does not appear to be any dispute. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1978 as Teacher Grill and her selection was a regular one. She was confirmed after completion of two years probation period in the year 1980, however, she was holding the status of an untrained teacher and was not getting regular pay scale of Teacher Gr111. She was granted regular pay scale w.e.f. 1984 on the basis of her obtaining/passing B.Ed. Examination from Maithili Vishwa Vidhyapeeth, Darbhanga. Subsequently, it was found that the said degree/certificate was not recognised by the State of Rajasthan and order granting regular pay scale was withdrawn and recovery of the excess amount ....... paid to the petitioner was ordered to be recovered -by deduction of Rs. 100/- per month from the salary. They, this Court vide order dated April 18, 1994 directed the respondents to grant regular pay scale of Teacher Gr. III on completion of ten years service as per Circular dated, 19.12.92 and a month's time was granted to comply with the order. It appears that this order was not complied with and the impugned order came to be passed. 8. It is true that the services of two teachers, namely, Shankar Lal and Kamlesh Kumari was terminated by the Vikas Adhikari, Udaipurwati on the ground of getting service on the basis of B.Ed. degree issued by Maithili Vishwa Vidhyapeeth, Darbhanga, which was not recognised and this Court is S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.387/94 refused to interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction on the petition filed by the Teachers observing that the B.Ed. degrees were un-recognised/forged and the teachers could not have been given appointment either on temporary or regular basis on the basis of the said degrees possessed by them. The said judgment has no application in the present case as the facts in the case in hand are distinguishable. Here the petitioner has not obtained her appointment in the year 1978 on the basis of any un-recognised/forged certificate or degree. Her appointment as Teacher Gr.lll which has been confirmed lateron, is unchallengable on any ground, though her status was of an untrained Teacher. However, in pursuance to the judgment of this Court referred to above, the petitioner is entitled to get regular pay scale on her completion of ten years of service in the year 1988. So far as this part of her service is concerned, that had nothing to do with the B.Ed. degree obtained by her from Maithili Vishwa Vidhyapeeth, Darbhanga. The only benefit obtained by the petitioner on the basis of that degree/certificate was to the extent that she was given regular pay scale from the year 1984 instead of 1988 which could have been given to her on completion of her ten years service. The order granting regular pay scale w.e.f. 1984 on the Oasis of the aforesaid B.Ed. degree was already withdrawn by the respondent No.3 vide order dated 8.9.92 (Annex.6) and the excess payment made to her was being deducted from her salary at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. In these circumstances, the termination of the petitioner's service on the basis of B.Ed. degree/certificate issued by Maithili Vishwa Vidhyapeeth, Darbhanga is not sustainable in the eye of law. The benefit granted to the petitioner on the basis of said degree/certificate was already withdrawn. It is also note-worthy that the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner was also not concluded and no finding was recorded in the said enquiry, that the petitioner mis-conducted herself in obtaining the aforesaid degree or getting benefit on the basis of the said degree. 9. Judged from any angle, the impugned order terminating the petitioner's service is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is quashed. The petition is allowed as indicated above. No order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of the case. Writ Petition Allowed.;