Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned the termination of an ad hoc teacher, Dinesh Kumar Bharti, by the State of Rajasthan, and the subsequent challenge to that termination through the judicial hierarchy. The respondent was appointed on an ad hoc basis as a teacher on September 30, 1970. A Screening Committee constituted under Rule 25 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 to regularize services of ad hoc teachers considered his case and found him not fit to be confirmed. Based on that adverse finding, the State terminated his services on May 8, 1974. The respondent challenged the termination by filing a suit. The trial court decreed the suit in his favour, holding that the termination was illegal because prior notice as required by Rule 23A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 was not given. The appellate court affirmed that decree. The State of Rajasthan then filed a second appeal before the Rajasthan High Court, but a single Judge of the High Court dismissed the second appeal on the ground of limitation, without examining the merits. The State of Rajasthan then approached the Supreme Court by special leave petition. The Supreme Court granted leave and, after hearing both sides, decided not to remand the matter but to dispose of it on merits. The core legal issue was whether the termination of an ad hoc teacher, found unfit by the Screening Committee, required a three-month notice under Rule 23A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, and whether the lower courts erred in holding the termination bad for want of such notice. The Supreme Court examined Rule 6(b)(3), which provided for screening of ad hoc/officiating/temporary employees holding posts on 31.12.72 and continuously for not less than six months as on 15.12.1971, by a committee referred to in Rule 25 for adjudging suitability. Rule 25 provided for constitution of a Screening Committee. The Court noted that the Screening Committee was constituted in 1974 and concluded that the respondent was not fit to be confirmed. Rule 23A was inserted with effect from July 10, 1981, i.e., after the termination order of May 8, 1974. The Court held that Rule 23A (2)(a) was per se inapplicable to the termination because it was inserted later. Even assuming it was applicable, the Court observed that Rule 23A would apply only where consultation with the Rajasthan Public Service Commission was necessary and the Commission found the government servant not eligible to be confirmed. In the present case, the Screening Committee, not the Public Service Commission, had adjudged suitability; therefore, the case was not covered under Rule 23A for obtaining concurrence of the Public Service Commission. Consequently, the three-month notice requirement was not applicable. The Supreme Court found that the view of the trial court and appellate court that termination was bad for want of notice was obviously incorrect. It also held that the High Court was incorrect in dismissing the second appeal on the ground of delay. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the courts below, and directed no costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Ad Hoc Employee - Notice Requirement Under Rule 23A - Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, Rules 6(b)(3), 23A, 25 - Termination of respondent on 08-05-1974 after Screening Committee found him unfit did not require three months' notice under Rule 23A, which was inserted w.e.f. 10-07-1981; further, Rule 23A applied only where consultation with Rajasthan Public Service Commission was necessary, not where Screening Committee constituted under Rule 25 adjudged suitability - Held that lower courts' view that termination was bad for want of notice was incorrect; appeal allowed and lower court orders set aside (Paras 1-3). B) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Dismissal on Limitation - High Court dismissed State's second appeal on ground of limitation; Supreme Court held that instead of remanding, matter could be disposed of on merits, and High Court erred in dismissing appeal on delay - Held that appeal should be allowed on merits, setting aside lower court orders, without remanding (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether termination of an ad hoc teacher found unfit by Screening Committee was illegal for want of notice under Rule 23A of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, and whether High Court erred in dismissing second appeal on ground of limitation.
Final Decision
The appeal was allowed. The order of the courts below, including the trial court and appellate court, was set aside. The termination of the respondent was held valid and did not require notice under Rule 23A. No costs were awarded.
Law Points
- Rule 23A of Rajasthan Service Rules
- 1951 inserted w.e.f. 10-07-1981 is inapplicable to termination made in 1974 after Screening Committee found ad hoc teacher unfit
- per se inapplicable
- no notice required where Screening Committee not Public Service Commission
