1996 JTR(SC) 906
1996 AIR(SC) 3328 ; 1996 AIR(SCW) 2660 ; 1996 74 FLR 1931 ; 1996 5 JT 641 ; 1996 4 Scale 442 ; 1996 9 SCC 320 ; 1996 SCC(L&S) 1246 ; 1996 2 SCJ 549 ; 1996 Supp2 SCR 280 ; 1996 3 SCT 615 ; 1996 4 SLR 240 ; 1997 1 UPLBEC 259 ; 1996 KHC 1195 ; 1996 4 Supreme 599
1996(4) Supreme 599
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Madan Mohan Punchhi and K.T. Thomas, JJ.
Smt. Santosh Yadav -Appellant
versus
State of Haryana & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7748 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12879 of 1990)
Decided on 2-5-1996
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.14
SERVICE LAW : .
A) The relevant statutory provisions under the Constitution of India and service law framework govern the lawfulness of appointment and termination of teachers in educational institutions receiving state recognition. The service of the appellant teacher, engaged on a six-monthly basis, was terminated on the basis of an instruction issued by the Directorate of Education, Haryana, which clarified that only those teacher trainees who had obtained diplomas from recognized institutions were to be appointed. The impugned order relied on this departmental clarification to extinguish her long continued service, despite the fact that she had been appointed earlier and her renewals and confirmation were proceeded in regular consonance with the administrative practice.
B) Key legal principles include that an order of termination must be procedurally fair and substantively reasonable; service records and regular confirmation create legitimate expectations; relaxation communicated through subsequent instructions cannot be applied retrospectively to vitiate earlier sanctioned continuance of service; and arbitrariness in service decisions violates constitutional and service law safeguards.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was engaged as a Hindi teacher on six-monthly contract from 21.10.1980, with periodic renewals. She obtained a Teacher Training Diploma from the Secondary Education Board, U.P., Bareilly, which was not recognized by the Haryana Government. In 1981, the Directorate of Education issued an instruction restricting recruitment to those holding diplomas from recognized institutions, but subsequently relaxed this bar for teachers already working on stop-gap basis before the summer vacation of 1981. The appellant was working continuously in this category. In 1990, her services were terminated on the ground of the non-recognition of her diploma, wiping out a long period of service, even though others in similar situations were made permanent.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition in limine. The termination order was found to be arbitrary and unsupported, given the relaxation already extended to her and her regularization in service. The court held that the impugned order could not stand and that she was entitled to be restored with back wages and all consequential service benefits.
Issues:
Whether termination of service on the basis of non-recognition of a diploma, after a course of regular renewals and subsequent relaxation, was permissible; whether the doctrine of legitimate expectation applied; and whether the impugned order was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi:
An authority, having allowed a teacher to serve for a long period on the basis of an initially accepted qualification and having subsequently relaxed the eligibility criteria, cannot unilaterally terminate her service on earlier non-compliance when the relaxation negates the defect. Termination under such circumstances is arbitrary and illegal.
Result:
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.3.1990 is quashed, and she is directed to be restored with back wages and all service benefits including seniority and promotion as would have accrued.
A) The relevant statutory provisions under the Constitution of India and service law framework govern the lawfulness of appointment and termination of teachers in educational institutions receiving state recognition. The service of the appellant teacher, engaged on a six-monthly basis, was terminated on the basis of an instruction issued by the Directorate of Education, Haryana, which clarified that only those teacher trainees who had obtained diplomas from recognized institutions were to be appointed. The impugned order relied on this departmental clarification to extinguish her long continued service, despite the fact that she had been appointed earlier and her renewals and confirmation were proceeded in regular consonance with the administrative practice.
B) Key legal principles include that an order of termination must be procedurally fair and substantively reasonable; service records and regular confirmation create legitimate expectations; relaxation communicated through subsequent instructions cannot be applied retrospectively to vitiate earlier sanctioned continuance of service; and arbitrariness in service decisions violates constitutional and service law safeguards.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was engaged as a Hindi teacher on six-monthly contract from 21.10.1980, with periodic renewals. She obtained a Teacher Training Diploma from the Secondary Education Board, U.P., Bareilly, which was not recognized by the Haryana Government. In 1981, the Directorate of Education issued an instruction restricting recruitment to those holding diplomas from recognized institutions, but subsequently relaxed this bar for teachers already working on stop-gap basis before the summer vacation of 1981. The appellant was working continuously in this category. In 1990, her services were terminated on the ground of the non-recognition of her diploma, wiping out a long period of service, even though others in similar situations were made permanent.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition in limine. The termination order was found to be arbitrary and unsupported, given the relaxation already extended to her and her regularization in service. The court held that the impugned order could not stand and that she was entitled to be restored with back wages and all consequential service benefits.
Issues:
Whether termination of service on the basis of non-recognition of a diploma, after a course of regular renewals and subsequent relaxation, was permissible; whether the doctrine of legitimate expectation applied; and whether the impugned order was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi:
An authority, having allowed a teacher to serve for a long period on the basis of an initially accepted qualification and having subsequently relaxed the eligibility criteria, cannot unilaterally terminate her service on earlier non-compliance when the relaxation negates the defect. Termination under such circumstances is arbitrary and illegal.
Result:
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.3.1990 is quashed, and she is directed to be restored with back wages and all service benefits including seniority and promotion as would have accrued.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. The High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellant in limine.
3. The appellant had put to challenge order dated 27.3.1990 (Annexure-H) whereby she was conveyed by the School authorities under whom she was working as a Hindi Teachress, that since she had secured her Teacher s Training from the Secondary Education Board, U.P., Bareilly, which was not recognized by the Haryana Government, she had to be relieved from her duties thenceforth with immediate effect. By one stroke of pen, her long durated service spanning from 21.10.1980 onwards, which began on six monthly basis, (ignoring small gaps here and there ) till the year 1990 was wiped out; whereas undeniably other Teachers similarly situated on six months basis, had been able to mature as permanent teachers entitled to continue in service. The lone disquieting factor was that the appellant had a diploma which did not have the approval of the Haryana Government and yet in laxity teachers had been appointed, in order to draw work out of them, to meet the State s educational needs.
4. It was for the first time on 7.7.1981 (copy of instruction placed on file) that the Directorate of Education, Haryana woke up from its slumber informing all concerned that it had come to the notice of the Department that persons who had obtained their teacher s training diploma/certificate from other States were being recruited or appointed and it need be notified that the method was irregular. It was therefore desired that in future only those persons shall be recruited who have obtained their teachers training diploma/certificate from Haryana Education Department. All concerned were further required to strictly adhere to these instructions and also to bring all these to the notice of all the appointing authorities under the jurisdiction of the Government as well as non-government (but recognised) institutions for strict compliance.
5. It is on the basis of the aforesaid letter dated 7.7.1981 that services of the appellant were terminated on 27.7.1990.
6. It is not denied that the appellant was taken in service on the basis of the diploma/certificate she possessed, having obtained it from the Secondary Education Board. U.P., Bareilly and that her six months terms were kept renewed from time to time, ignoring small gaps in between, as was the pattern. Therefore we fail to see that when she was acceptable in 1980 and her terms were kept renewed from time to time uptil 22.5.1982, and onwards, whereafter she was confirmed in the year 1984, how could her services be terminated in the year 1990, when she had attained regularity in service. It is significant to note that the letter dated 7.7.1981 was itself watered down on 22.7.1981 (Annexure A) clarifying that the ban imposed on recruitment of persons who had obtained their diplomas/certificates from non-recognised institutions, would not apply to those who were working as teachers on stop-gap/adhoc/six months basis before the summer vacation of 1981. Concededly, the appellant occupied that position as she was working on six monthly basis immediately before the summer vacation of 1991; (sic) 1981. Thus, on account of such relaxation being available for her and she having earned regularity in her service, it was wholly wrong and arbitrary on the part of the Education Department and the School to have deprived her of her job. Thus, the impugned order dated 27.3.1990 (Annexure H) relieving the appellant from her dutines as Hindi Teachress with immediate effect, is quashed, putting her back to position with back wages and regularity of service, including other service benefits such as seniority, promotion, increments etc. as would have normally been due to her.
7. The appeal thus stands allowed in these terms.
Appeal allowed.
*******