Holding

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s orders and remitted the matter for fresh consideration because the effect of the Punjab State Class IV Service Rules, 1963 and the Director’s letter were not considered.

Summary

The State of Punjab took over Chanan Devi Memorial Girl High School and, through a letter from the Director of Public Instructions, instructed the District Education Officer to ensure that all staff possessed the qualifications prescribed under the Punjab State Class IV Service Rules, 1963. The authorities held that the respondents, Swarankaur and others, lacked the requisite qualifications and the respondents filed a writ petition challenging this view. The Additional Advocate General conceded that the Rules were not applicable, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the writ petition and dismissed a subsequent review. On appeal, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court had failed to consider the effect of the 1963 Rules and the mandatory language of the Director’s letter, and therefore set aside the High Court’s orders and remitted the matter for fresh consideration without expressing any view on the merits.

Issues considered

Whether the Punjab State Class IV Service Rules, 1963 apply to staff of a school taken over by the State.
Whether the letter from the Director of Public Instructions creates a duty that makes the Rules applicable to the appointment of the respondents.
Whether the High Court erred in not taking into account the effect of the Rules and the Director’s letter.

Subjects

school takeoverservice rulesqualification requirementwrit petitionreview petitionDirector of Public Instructions letterappointment eligibilityPunjab State Class IV Service RulesSupreme Court remand

Judgment

A STA TE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
v.
SWARAN KAUR AND ORS.

MARCH 7, 2007

B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]

Punjab State Class IV Service Rules, 1963-School taken over by
State-Letter by Director Public Instructions directing District Education
t •
Officer to ensure that all members of stafffulfilled the requisite qualification
c relevant for the post-Authorities of view that respondents not fulfilled the
requisite qualification-Writ petition by respondents allowed by High Court-
On appeal, held, High Court did not consider the effect of 1963 Rules and
the indication in the letter-Matter remitted to High Court for fresh
consideration.
D
The State of Punjab had taken over the School. The Director Public
Instructions Wrote to the District Education Officer to ensure that all the
members of staff fulfilled the requisite qualification for recruitment to the
relevant post. The authorities held that the respondent did not possess the
requisite qualification for appointment under the Punjab State Class IV
E Service Rules, 1963.

The respondent filed writ petition challenging the view of Authorities.
The Additional Advocate General conceded that the Rules were not applicable
to the case of respondent. However, on the basis of concession by Additional
Advocate General, High Court allowed the writ petition. The review petition
F was also dismissed on the ground that there was no presumption on the said
letter which would indicate applicability of the Rules. Hence these appeals.
"-
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: The effect of the Punjab State Class IV Service Rules, 1963 and
G the indication in the letter has not been considered by the High Court. In the
circumstances, the orders of the High Court is set aside and the matter is
remitted to it for fresh consideration. [Para 8) (643-8-C] .'r '

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1185 of2007.
H 640
STATEOFPUNJABv. SWARANKAUR[PASAYAT..I.] 641

'r From the Final Judgment and Order dated 27.4.2004 and 13.5.2005 of the A
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP.No. 2899/2003 and
RA No. 62/2005 in CWP No. 2899/2003.

H.S. Munjral and Arun K. Sinha for the Appellants.

R.K. Kapoor, M.K. Verma, Govind Kaushik, S.S. Yadav and Anis Ahmed B
Khan for the Respondents.

J
~
t
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAY AT, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in these appeals is to the orders passed by a Division
c
Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. One of them relates to the
orders passed in the writ petition while other one relates to the order passed
in a review application.

3. The basic question raised in the writ petition filed by the respondents D
was whether the authorities were justified in holding that they did not possess
the requisite qualification for appointment under the Punjab State Class IV
-(
Service Rules, 1963 (in short the 'Rules'). The State of Punjab had taken over
Chanan Devi Memorial Girl High School, Saleem Tabri, Ludhiana under certain
conditions so far as the employment of the members of staff concerned. The
Director Public Instructions, Punjab wrote to the District Education Officer, E
Chandigarh to ensure that all the members of the staff fulfil the requisite
qualification for recruitment to the relevant post. Taking exception to the view
expressed by the District Education officer that the writ petitioners who are
the respondents in these appeals did not possess requisite qualification. Writ
petition was filed stating that said view is not sustainable in law. Purportedly F
.<\ acting on a basis of a concession made by learned Additional Advocate
General, who was appearing in the writ petition, the writ petition was allowed.
The learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab purportedly conceded that
the rules were not applicable to the case of the writ petitioner. Subsequently
a review petition was filed stating that the concession was uncalled for
G

'
. ~
because the letter of the Director, Public Instructions, Punjab dated 17 .11.1995
addressed to the District Education officer, Chandigarh clearly stipulated the
terms for continuance in service. The High Court dismissed the review
application on the ground that there was no prescription in the said letter
which would indicate applicability of the rules.
H
642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 3 S.C.R.

A 4. In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the appellants submitted
that the: view of the High Court is clearly untenable. The Director, Public
Instructions had clearly stipulated in the said letter that it was the duty of
the District Education Officer to ensure that all the members of the staff of
the taken over educational institute fulfil the requisite qualification for
B recruitment to the relevant posts. With reference to the rules it is pointed out
that certain educational qualifications have been prescribed which the
respondents did not possess.

5. In response learned counsel for the respondents submitted that more
than a decade has since elapsed and it would not be proper to interfere with
C the order of the High Court which was based initially on concession and
subsequently on a finding recorded that there was no prescription in the letter
dated 17.11.1995 relating to educational qualifications.

6. At this juncture it is necessary to take note of the relevant provisions
in the Rules which read as follows:
D
"Rule 5 : No person shall be recruited to the Service by direct
appointment unless he -

(a) produces certificates of character from two responsible persons,
not being his relatives, who are well acquainted with him in
E private life;
(b) is not less than 16 years and not more than 35 years of age on
the date of appointment;
(c) has not more than one wife living and in the case of a woman,
is not married to a person already having a living wife:
F
Provided that the Government may, if satisfied that there are
~)':.....
special grounds for doing so, exempt any person from the
operation of this clause; and
(d) possesses the requisite knowledge of the regional languages and
of English as may be prescribed by the Government from time to
G time:
Provided that the appointing authority may, if it is of the opinion <
~ .. ,
that the candidate is otherwise fit to discharge his duties
satisfactorily, relax any of the qualification prescribed under this
clause."
H
STATE OF PUNJAB v. SW ARAN KAUR [PASAYA T. J.) 643
7. Similarly in the letter of Director of Public Instructions it was clearly A
'I' stated as follows:

" .... .it is the duty of the District Education Officer to see that all of
them fulfil the requisite qualification for recruitment in the relevant
posts."
B
8. The effect of the afore-stated rule and the indication in the letter has
not been considered by the High Court. In the circumstances, we set aside
the orders of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration.

' We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits. The
High Court is requested to dispose of the writ petition as early as practicable.
c
9. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent without any order as
to costs.

D.G. Appeals allowed.

-A.'