Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2694 (RAJ)

Miss Nutan Sharma v. Panchayat Samiti, Jhadol

2005-10-18

RAJESH BALIA, S.N.JHA

body2005
Judgment 1. This special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.03.1999 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2517/1996 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. 2. The appellant had filed the writ petition seeking direction from the respondents to consider her case for regularisation on the post of Primary Teacher Grade III relying on a Government order dated 11.08.1989 which provides for regularisation of service of working teachers possessing requisite qualification falling within the age limits appointed upto 16.05.1988. The learned Single Judge took the view that the appellant did not possess the requisite qualification as on the cut off date and her claim for regularisation was not maintainable, and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition. 3. The case of the appellant is that she possessed the qualification of HTC (Handicapped Training Certificate) which is equivalent to BSTC - the qualification laid down in the Government order dated 11.08.1989 and, as such, she was entitled to regularisation of her services. 4. The alternative case of the appellant is that even if she did not possess the requisite qualification as on 16.05.1988 by reason of the B.Ed. qualification which she subsequently acquired in 1991, she became eligible for appointment/ regularisation of services and, therefore, the learned Single Judge should have directed the respondents to consider her case accordingly. It was stated that the appellant has been continuously in service since 1985 i.e., for last 20 years. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the appellant did not possess the requisite qualification of BSTC as on 16.05.1988 and, therefore, she could not claim for regularisation of her services in terms of the Government order. The regularisation was subject to the candidates possessing the qualifications as mentioned therein. One of the qualifications was BSTC or “equivalent qualification”. In response to the observations of the Court, Shri Harish Purohit, appearing for the appellant, fairly stated that there is no Government order declaring HTC as equivalent of BSTC. There is thus no difficulty in rejecting the appellants claim for regularisation w.e.f. 15.05.1988. 6. However, we find force in the claim of the appellant that if she came to acquire requisite qualification of B.Ed. some time in 1991, her case for appointment / regularisation may be considered from the date she acquired the qualification. There is thus no difficulty in rejecting the appellants claim for regularisation w.e.f. 15.05.1988. 6. However, we find force in the claim of the appellant that if she came to acquire requisite qualification of B.Ed. some time in 1991, her case for appointment / regularisation may be considered from the date she acquired the qualification. In taking this view, we are guided by the fact that the appellant has been continuing in service for last 20 years. Though at one stage when her services were terminated. The order was quashed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 3075/1994 on 12.05.1994. 7. We accordingly, direct the respondents to consider the case of the appellant for regularisation from the date she acquired the qualification of B.Ed. in accordance with law. 8. The order of learned Single Judge is modified to this extent and the appeal is accordingly, disposed of .