Holding

Rule 23A does not apply where termination is based on a Screening Committee’s finding without PSC consultation, so the termination without three‑month notice is valid and the appeal is allowed.

Summary

The State of Rajasthan terminated the service of Dinesh Kumar Bharti, an ad‑hoc teacher appointed on 30 September 1970, after a Screening Committee under Rule 25 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 found him unfit for regularisation. Bharti challenged the termination; the trial court upheld it and the appellate court affirmed, but the Rajasthan High Court dismissed his second appeal on the ground of limitation, relying on Rule 23A which requires three months' written notice. The Supreme Court held that Rule 23A does not apply because termination was based on a Screening Committee’s finding, not on a decision after consultation with the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, and therefore the lack of notice did not invalidate the termination. Consequently, the High Court’s dismissal on limitation was erroneous, and the appeal was allowed, setting aside the lower courts' orders.

Issues considered

Whether Rule 23A(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 applies to the termination of an ad‑hoc teacher whose suitability was assessed by a Screening Committee under Rule 25, without consultation with the Rajasthan Public Service Commission.
Whether the absence of a three‑month written notice renders the termination order illegal.
Whether the appeal is barred by limitation.

Legislation cited

Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951s. Rule 23A, s. Rule 25, s. Rule 6(b)(3)

Subjects

service lawtermination of servicead‑hoc appointmentscreening committeepublic service commissionlimitation periodemployment law

Judgment

A STATE OF RAJASTHAN
v.
DINESH KUMAR BHARTI

JANUARY 20, 1997

B [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.)

SeTVice Law :

Rajasthan Se1vice Rules, 1951 :

C Rules 6(b)(3)23A, 2~Ad-lwc appointment of Teachers-Regulaiisa-
tion of-Screening Committee found respondent not fit to be confimied--Ter-
mination of seTVice~Decreed by trial court and affirmed by appellate
court-High Court dismissing the second appeal on the 6fOUnd of limita-
tion-On appeal held, where consultation with Public SeTVice Commission is
D necessaiy but found not eligible to be co11fi1med three mo11ths notice in writing
required-In the case of respondent, co11cu1Tence not required-There[ore the
view of the Cowts below was obviously i11co1Tect-High Cowt not right in
dismissing the appeal on ground of delay.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 349 of
E 1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.11.92 of the Rajasthan High
Court in S.A. No. 175 of 1992.

Aruneshwar Gupta for the Appellant. ;.( :
F
Indra Makwana for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :
\
Leave granted.
G
We have heard learned counsel for both the parties.

This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the single ~
Judge of the Rajasthan High Court made on November 4, 1992 in S.A. No.
175 of 1992. The learned Judge dismissed the second appeal on the ground
H of limitation. After hearing the karned counsel for both the parties, instead
400
STATE v. D.K. BHARTI 401
of remanding the matter, we think that it can be disposed of on merits. The A
respondent was appointed on ad hoc basis as a teacher on September 30,
1970. The Screening Committee constituted to regularise the services of
the ad hoc teachers found that the respo_ndent was not fit to be confirmed.
On the basis thereof, the order of termination came to be made on May 8,
1974. It was challenged in the suit. Ultimately, when it was decreed by the
B
trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court, the High Court dismissed
the second appeal on the ground of limitation. The District Judge relied
upon Rule 23A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 to hold that prior
notice required by Rule 23A was not given to terminate the service. So the
order is bad in law. Rule 6(b),(3) of the Rules provides thus :
c
"Rule 6(b)(3)-that a person holding any of the following grade I
post in sections B, C, D, E and F or any of the posts in section
"A" of the scheduled on 31-12-72 in an ad hoc/officiating/temporary
capacity and who had continuously held the said post or would
have held any of these posts but for his deputation elsewhere, for D
a period not less than six months on 15-12-1971 and was working
as such on the date of publication of these (amendment) Rules
shall be screened by a committee referred to in Rule 25, for
adjudging his suitability for such post, provided he possesses the
qualifications prescribed in the rules either for direct recruitment
or for promotion or the prescribed qualification of the posts on E
the basis of which he was appointed in the ad hoc or officiating or
temporary capacity on such post."

Under Rule 25, Screening Committee was appointed to adjudge the
suitability of ad hoc teachers for regularisation. As a consequence of the F
above rule, the Screening Committee considered the persons holding post
of temporary or officiating basis or in ad hoc capacity who had continuously
held the post for period of not less than six months as on December 15,
1971 and were working as such on the date of the publication of the
Amendment of the rules. They were required to be screened by a Com-
mittee constituted under Rule 25 to adjudge their suitability to the posts G
provided they possess the qualification prescribed under the Rule either
for the direct recruitment or for promotion or the prescribed qualification
of the posts on the basis of which they were appointed in ad hoc or
officiating or temporary capacity. Admittedly, the Committee was con-
stituted in 1974 under Rule 25 and the Committee came to the conclusion H
402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] 1 S.C.R.

A that the respondent was not fit to be confirmed. Rule 23A was inserted
w.e.f. July 10, 1981. Rule 23A(2) reads as under:

"The service of a temporary Government servant who has been in
continuous Government service for more than three years and who
satisfied the suitability in respect of age and qualifications
B prescribed for the post and has been appointed in consultation
with the Rajasthan Public Service Commission where such liable
,to termination at any time by a notice of three months given in
writing either by the Government servant to the appointing
authority or by the appointing authority to the Government servant
c
Provided that the service of any such Government servant may be
terminated forthwith, and on such termination the Government
servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount
of his pay plus allowances for the period of notice at the same rate
D at which he was drawing immediately before the termination of his
service for the period by which such notice falls short of three
months, as the case may be."

Therefore, Rule 23(2)(a) per se was inapplicable. Even otherwise,
E assuming that it was applicable, it would apply to a case where consultation
with the Public Service Commission is necessary and the Public Service
Commission fiJJds the Government servant not eligible to be confirmed. In
such a case, termination of the services could be made only after giving
three months notice in writing. In this case, the Screening Committee was
constituted. It is obviously not a case covered under Section 23A for
F obtaining the concurrence of the Public Service Commission. Under those
circumstances, the view of the courts below was obviously incorrect. The
High Court was incorrect in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay.

The appeal is accordingliy allowed. The order of the courts below
G stands set aside. No costs.

G.N. Appeal allowed.