Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2233 (RAJ)

Rajbala v. State of Rajasthan

2005-08-24

GOVIND MATHUR

body2005
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-The petitioner entered in the services of the respondents being appointed as Teacher in Panchayat Samiti Gogunda under an order dated 112.1988 passed by the Vikas Adhikari of the aforesaid Panchayat Samiti. The appointment was given to the petitioner on basis of a Bachelors Degree in Education obtained by her from Gautam Buddha Vishwavidhyapeeth Sodh Sansthan, Patna, Bihar which was found as not a valid degree. The petitioner while in employment also obtained a Bachelors Degree in Education from Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak. The petitioner apprehending her termination from services, approached this Court seeking a direction for respondents to declare her termination illegal. The petitioner contended in the writ petition that while in service, she has already obtained a B. Ed. degree from recognised University, therefore, even if the degree she was having at the time of her appointment, was not a valid degree, there is no need to discontinue her from service. The respondents were also proceeding to effect recovery from the petitioners pay for the payment made to her against salary during the period she was not having a valid degree. This Court by an order dated 08.04.1993 restrained the respondents from effecting any recovery from the petitioner and also ordered not to relieve her from services if not already stood relieved. 2. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that at the time of initial appointment, petitioner was not having a recognised degree making her eligible to hold the post of Teacher Gr. III. It is also stated that the degree from Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak was obtained by the petitioner without permission of the employer, therefore, that too cannot be taken into consideration to allow her to continue in service. The respondents have also defended decision to effect recovery from the pay of the petitioner on the count that the appointment was given to her on a degree which was not valid, therefore, services rendered by her were not valid. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 4. It is true that at the time of initial appointment, the petitioner was not having a valid degree, however, she secured a degree making her competent while serving the respondents. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 4. It is true that at the time of initial appointment, the petitioner was not having a valid degree, however, she secured a degree making her competent while serving the respondents. As such, in view of the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Kulwant Kaur vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2001 (2) WLC (Raj.) 570, the petitioner is required to be continued in service. 5. The stand of the respondents to the effect that the B.Ed. Degree from M.D.S. University was obtained by the petitioner without permission of the employer is also of no consequence as it may be a reason for initiating disciplinary action but once the petitioner acquired the aforesaid degree, it cannot be said that she has not possessing a valid degree. In view of it, the petitioner is certainly eligible to hold the post of Teacher Gr. III. 6. The recovery sought to be made from the pay of the petitioner is also not justified for the reason that the amount was paid to the petitioner by the respondents against the work done by her. In the event, if the respondents be permitted to recover the amount from the pay of the petitioner, then the same shall be nothing but taking Begar, as such shall be in violation of Article 23 of the Constitution of India. In view of it, the respondents cannot be permitted to recover the amount paid to the petitioner as salary against the work done by her. 7. In view of the whatever stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned termination of the petitioner from service is declared illegal. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner in their continuous employment as Teacher Gr. III. The recovery sought to be made from the pay of the petitioner is also declared illegal and the respondents are restrained from effecting the same. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the salary for a period commencing from 01.03.1991 to 30.08.1992 was not paid to the petitioner. If the respondents have taken work from the petitioner for that period, then the salary of that period is required to be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. 8. No order as to costs.