Allowed

Nav Shiksha Samaj, Jodhpur v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC8 Aug 2024CW/3158/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged office orders approving a teacher's appointment only after the completion of five years of experience, despite her prior service. The court held that administrative approval must be effective from the date of appointment and quashed the delayed effective date, directing the State to regularize the appointment retroactively.

What did the court decide?

Approval of the appointment of Anjali Mathur with effect from the date of her appointment (27.08.1996) and direction to release the state aid and other consequent dues.

Nav Shiksha Samaj, Jodhpur Vs State and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:33023]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3158/2001

¶4

Nav Shiksha Samaj, Jodhpur –

¶5

Sir Pratap Senior Sec. School, Jodhpur – Through its President, Shri Roshan Lal Mathur, aged 44 years, Son of late Shri A.K. ‘D’ Mathur.

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Rajasthan – Through The Education Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶9

The Director, Secondary Eduction, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶10

The District Education Officer (Secondary), Jodhpur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. B.P. Mathur
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. N.K. Mehta D.G.C.

¶13

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶14

Order

¶15

08/08/2024

¶16

The present writ petition has been preferred against the office order dated 07.01.2000 (Annex.10) and office order dated 13.07.2001 (Annex.13) whereby, the appointment of Smt. Anjali Mathur as lecturer in the petitioner institute has been recommended by the State Department with effect from the date she completed five years service as a trained teacher.

¶17

The facts are as under :

¶18

(i) The petitioner-Institute issued an advertisement dated 10.08.1996 for the post of Lecturer in English. In terms of Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-In-Aid and Service Conditions Etc.) Rules, 1993 (referred to hereinafter as ‘the Rules of 1993’), a selection

[2024:RJ-JD:33023]

[CW-3158/2001]

(2 of 8)

committee was duly constituted which after the selection process, selected one Anjali Mathur.

¶23

(ii) The Managing Committee of the petitioner institute, then forwarded the name of the selected candidate with its recommendation to the competent authority for approval in terms of Rule 27 of the Rules of 1993.

¶24

(iii) However, no approval of the competent authority was received and hence, vide letter dated 29.08.1996 (Annex.4), the institute requested the Director (Education) for issuance of the approval order. In response, vide letter dated 14.10.1996, the Director (Education) called for the documents pertaining to the experience of the selected candidate.

¶25

(iv) Vide letter dated 02.12.1996, the information as required was forwarded by the petitioner institute but still when the approval was not received, again vide letter dated 25.05.1997, the same was requested.

¶26

(v) However, meanwhile the petitioner institute granted appointment to the selected candidate Anjali Mathur. (vi) Subsequently, it was observed by the office of the Director (Education) that the selected candidate did not possess the requisite 5 years of experience as her certificate pertaining to the period from 01.07.1991 to 15.05.1996 was for a period of 4 years 10 months 15 days only. Meaning thereby, it was short of one and a half months experience. However, while observing that the short period of one and a half months pertain to summer vacation, the Director (Education) vide letter dated 10.07.1997 (Annex.8), wrote to the State authority for relaxation in the said period.

[2024:RJ-JD:33023]

[CW-3158/2001]

(3 of 8)

(vii) The matter remained pending for years with the State Government and ultimately, vide communication/order dated 07.01.2000, the competent authority approved the appointment of Anjali Mathur with effect from the date when she completed the period of five years as a trained teacher.

¶31

(viii) In pursuance to the communication/order dated 07.01.2000, the office order dated 13.07.2001 was issued vide which the appointment of Anjali Mathur was recommended with effect from 01.07.2001 i.e. after a period of five years from her date of appointment i.e. 27.08.1996.

¶32

(ix) It is the order dated 07.01.2000 (Annex.10) and the consequential order dated 13.07.2001 (Annex.13) which are under challenge in the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appointment of selected candidate Anjali Mathur ought to have been approved right from the date of her appointment as admittedly, she had an experience of 4 years 10 months & 15 days on the said date. The short period of 1 and a half month’s experience was essentially to be waived as firstly , it pertained to the summer vacation period and secondly , in terms of the Rules governing the Education Department of the State, ‘a session’ means an experience of continuous 6 months teaching in a particular year. He submitted that as per the Rules governing the appointment of teachers to be appointed with the aided institutes, the marks to be awarded were as under :

¶33

(i) 1 mark for 1 session; (ii) 3 marks for 2 sessions; (iii) 5 marks for 3 or more sessions; and

[2024:RJ-JD:33023]

[CW-3158/2001]

(4 of 8)

a session was to mean 6 months of continuous teaching in a particular year.

¶38

In terms of the above Rules/Guidelines too, Anjali Mathur was entitled to grant of 5 marks which she had been granted. Therefore, her selection was totally in consonance with the Rules governing the recruitment process.

¶39

Counsel further submitted that the selection process was conducted in presence of the representative of the State department and soon after the selection of the candidate, it was duly forwarded to the competent authority for approval but the same was neither rejected nor granted and was kept pending at the level of the competent authority for years.

¶40

Further, there was a deemed approval of the State authority as the due amount of aid qua the post on which Anjali Mathur was selected, was released to the petitioner institute for the period from 27.08.1996 to 31.03.1997. Once the aid qua the said post was released after the appointment been made by the institute, it would definitely amount to a deemed approval of the appointment and it could not have been amended subsequently and the State department was estopped from doing so.

¶41

With the above submissions, learned counsel submitted that the orders impugned deserve to be set aside and the appointment of Anjali Mathur deserves to be approved with effect from the date of her appointment.

¶42

Per contra, learned counsel for the State submitted that the orders impugned are perfectly in accordance with the Rules governing the appointment of the lecturers in the aided institutes. As per the Rules, the candidate ought to have possessed either a

[2024:RJ-JD:33023]

[CW-3158/2001]

(5 of 8)

Second Class Master’s degree in relevant subject with Degree or Diploma in Education OR a Post Graduate degree in relevant subject with Degree or Diploma in Education with 5 years experience of teaching in recognised institute of or above the standard of secondary schools. Admittedly, selected candidate Anjali Mathur was possessing a Third Class degree in post graduation and hence, as per the Rules, was required to have 5 years teaching experience of senior classes.

¶47

Counsel submitted that the selected candidate did not possess the requisite 5 years experience and hence, she was rightly approved with effect from the date when she completed the said requisite experience of 5 years.

¶48

Heard learned counsels and perused the material available on record. 9. It is admitted on record that selected candidate Anjali Mathur was granted appointment without approval of the competent authority in terms of Rule 29 of the Rules of 1993 which provides for affording appointment only after the approval of the competent authority. It is also not disputed on record that the selection process was conducted in presence of the representative of the State department who also recommended the select list. But then, it is also not disputed on record that the select list with recommendation of the managing committee was forwarded for approval to the competent authority within the prescribed time and the same remained pending till the year 2001 without it either being rejected or being allowed. Further, it is also not in dispute that the competent authority itself recommended for relaxation in

[2024:RJ-JD:33023]

[CW-3158/2001]

(6 of 8)

the short period of one and a half months of experience observing the same to be the summer vacation period.

¶53

Furthermore, it is also clear on record that the selected candidate, after been offered appointment, continued to work with the petitioner institute for a period of five years and even the requisite aid qua the said post was released by the State department for the period from 27.08.1996 (date of appointment) to 31.03.1997.

¶54

What can be concluded from the above facts is that although there was no order of approval in writing but the same was approved by the State department by its action. Once the State department proceeded on to release the aid qua the said post, it cannot be permitted to take a contrary stand subsequently and aver that the selected candidate did not possess the requisite experience.

¶55

Further, it is not the case of the State that the appointment was dehors the Rules. Had it been so, the appointment of the selected candidate would have been cancelled by the respondent department. But that is not the case here. The State department has proceeded on to approve the appointment of Anjali Mathur although with effect from a date subsequent.

¶56

In the specific opinion of this Court, any appointment cannot be partially bad or good. The appointment of the selected candidate could have been termed by the State department to be either bad or good. It could either have been cancelled or approved. Once the appointment has been approved, it would mean that it has been approved with effect from the date of

(7 of 8)

[2024:RJ-JD:33023]

[CW-3158/2001]

appointment. No provision of law provides for an approval with effect from any subsequent date.

¶61

Further, it is not disputed that Anjali Mathur did possess a working experience of 4 years 10 months 15 days of teaching senior classes. The experience as per the State, was short of one and a half months. It is not disputed that the said period pertained to summer vacation.

¶62

Furthermore, it is uncontroverted that the Rules governing the recruitment of government teachers provide for a ‘session’ to mean six months continuous teaching in one particular year. Evidently, the said Rule provides for awarding of five marks for an experience of 3 or more sessions. As is evident, Anjali Mathur was granted 5 marks qua experience and rightly so. It is after calculating the said 5 marks that she stood first in the select list and was selected. Therefore, even if the short period of experience of one and a half months is taken into consideration, 5 marks as awarded to the selected candidate could not have been reduced in terms of the Rule governing the marks to be awarded. Therefore, in the specific opinion of this Court, the objection as raised by the State department regarding the short period of experience was fallacious and ought to have been waived even if was to be taken into consideration.

¶63

In the overall facts and observations as made above, the approval of the appointment of selected candidate Anjali Mathur by the State department with effect from 01.07.2001 cannot be termed to be valid and deserves interference by this Court. The present writ petition is hence, allowed and the respondent department is directed to pass appropriate orders of approval of

(8 of 8)

[2024:RJ-JD:33023]

[CW-3158/2001]

appointment of Anjali Mathur with effect from the date of her appointment i.e. 27.08.1996.

¶68

After the said approval being granted, the amount qua the aid (share of the state) pertaining to the said post as paid by the petitioner institute to her, be released in favour of the petitioner institute within a period of two months thereafter. The other dues, if any, arising out of the consequence of the approval with effect from the date of appointment, would also be released in favour of the selected candidate/petitioner institute.

¶69

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶70

1-T.Singh/-

Nav Shiksha Samaj, Jodhpur v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nav Shiksha Samaj, Jodhpur v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Vyas Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Gunwanti Soni Vs the Municipal Corporation South, Jodhpur

Phool Chand Jain Vs Orix Leasing and Financial Services India Limited

Banwari and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Rajputana Transport Company Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Bhupendra Singh Gurjar Vs the State of Rajasthan