High CourtDivision Bench2007-09-21Appeal allowed; matter remitted to High Court f...

State of Punjab and Ors. v. Dev Raj and Ors.

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal No. 4408 of 2007

Neutral Citation:[2007] 10 S.C.R.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
Lokeswar Singh Panta
Judgment Date: 2007-09-21
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted to the Punjab and Haryana High Court for fresh decision in LP.A. No. 294 of 2003, with directions to consider the terms of the government–school arrangement and the corrigendum of 26 August 1983. The High Court is to decide on merits, independent of interim arrangements, and in light of the corrigendum’s scope, to determine who among the staff should be absorbed in government service.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; matter remitted to High Court for fresh decision on absorption in light of corrigendum and terms of arrangement.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State of Punjab and others

Respondents

Dev Raj and others

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Krishnan Venugopal
• Ajay Pal

Counsels for Respondents

• R.K. Kapoor
• M.K. Verma
• Anis Ahmed Khan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court appeal concerns absorption of teachers and laboratory assistants in Government service after the State Government decided to take over a financially distressed school. The State Government executed an agreement with the school management, undertaken on 28 June 1983, to take over the school with its existing staff, subject to certain conditions and a corrigendum issued on 26 August 1983. Respondents, who joined as teachers or laboratory assistants between 29 June 1983 and 21 January 1984, challenged the State’s decision to absorb them, claiming they were entitled to government service. They filed writ petitions which were stayed by the High Court; subsequently, a Single Judge held that despite their joining dates, there was a real need for teachers and lab assistants, and ordered absorption; the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) filed by the State was dismissed by the High Court on grounds that the respondents had been continuing in service since 1987. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for fresh decision. The Court observed that corrigendum clarifies that staff with prescribed qualifications who were members of staff at the time of the policy decision were to be considered for absorption, a point not properly examined by the High Court. It emphasized that the merits must be decided on the terms of the arrangement and not be clouded by interim arrangements. The matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh adjudication, with direction to consider the arrangement terms and the corrigendum."

Provisions of Law Cited

Corrigendum dated 26.8.1983 to order No.6/5-83-SE(I) dated 22.01.1987Order No.6/5-83-SE(I) dated 22.01.1987 (taking over the school subject to staff meeting prescribed qualifications)Clause (3) of the agreement between the school management and the Government regarding absorption

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The State contends that absorption is restricted to staff listed in the staff statement as of the time of the principal decision to take over the school. Respondents joined after the policy decision and were not part of the staff statement; absorption cannot be assumed for those not enumerated in the original roster. The government also points to the terms of the 28 June 1983 agreement, the 22 January 1987 order taking over the institution and the corrigendum issued on 26 August 1983, arguing that the decision to absorb was limited and contingent. Interim arrangements, though made, should not control the final outcome, and the High Court should examine the substantive terms of the arrangement rather than rely on interim placements. The corrigendum’s emphasis that those with prescribed qualifications who were members at the time of the policy decision should be considered is the key change that must be applied to determine absorption obligations.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue they were appointed against unaided posts during the transition period after the government’s decision to take over and thus are entitled to absorption in government service. They submit that the State’s policy, reflected in the agreement and subsequent corrigendum, intended to absorb staff with requisite qualifications who were working at the time of the take-over decision. The petitioners contend that the initial staff statement did not reflect all qualified personnel who served during the critical period, and that the High Court should enforce the government’s obligation to absorb those who meet the prescribed criteria and were in service when absorption decisions were taken.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against State of Punjab and Ors. v. Dev Raj and Ors. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A y ## STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ## _v._ ## DEV RAJ AND ORS. ## SEPTEMBER 21, 2007 [DR.ARIJITPASAYAT ANDLOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] _Service Law-Absorption-Claim of-Policy decision by State Government to take over a School in financial difficulties with its_ C _existing staff-Teachers who joined for certain period after policy decision taken by State Government claiming absorption-Stay order by High Court-Subsequently, court holding that claimants to be absorbed-Division Bench dismissing the State 's appeal on the ground that claimants working on basis of stay order-Sustainability of-Held:_ D _Not sustainable since High Court did not consider the agreement between School management and State Government that staff with prescribed qualification who were members of staff when policy decision was taken to be considered-Thus, matter remitted back._ State Government entered into an agreement with School E Management to take over the School facing financial difficulties with its existing staff on 28.3.1983. Respondents-teachers or laboratory • assistants between 29.6.1983 to 21.1.1984, filed writ petition claiming absorption in Government services. Appellant contended that the names of the respondents did not exist in staff statement prepared' F by staff management at the time principle decision was taken. High Court granted stay and the stay order continued. The Single Judge of High Court held that though they were employed between 28.6.1983 and 26.1.1987, there was need for teachers and thus, they 1 should be absorbed. Aggrieved, appellants filed LP A which was G dismissed on the ground that the respondents were continuing since 1987. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter, the Court 185 H 186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R. A HELD: There was a corrigendum issued that those staff with prescribed qualification who were members of the staff when the policy decision was taken were to be considered. The Single Judge of the High Court did not consider this aspect. Surprisingly, the Division Bench did not consider the merits and on the basis that the B respondents were working since 1987, dismissed the LPA. The approach is clearly unsustainable. The High Court ought to have examined terms of the arrangement between the school management and the Government. While deciding the dispute finally the Court ought not to be influenced by the fact that some interim arrangements c had been made. Such interim arrangements are always subject to the outcome of the main dispute. Since the Division Bench has not decided the appeal on merits, it is appropriate to remit the matter to the High Court for fresh decision. [Paras 5 and 6) [188-C-E; E-F) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4408 of D 2007. From the Judgment and Order dated 10.3.2005 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LP.A. No. 294of2003. E Krishnan Venugopal and Ajay Pal for the Appellants. R.K. Kapoor, M.K. Verma and Anis Ahmed Khan for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellants. G 3. The background facts, in a nutshell, are as follows: H On 7. 9.1980 a resolution was passed by the Janta High School, Rattewal, requesting the State Government to take over the institution as it was under financial stress. On 28.6.1983 the Government, on principle, decided to take over the institution subject to the conditions that a gift STATEOFPUNJABv. DEVRAJ[PASAYAT,J.] 187 _y_ _y_ _.A_ ,. ,A. deed along with certificate of qualification of the staff working in the school A was to be supplied. Names of the respondent did not appear in the list of the staff members. Respondents were appointed on different dates as teachers or laboratory Assistants against unaided posts between the period 29.6.1983 to 21.1.1984. State Government passed an order on 22.1.1987 taking over the institution subject to the condition that only B those staff members who were working at the time of taking over were to be continued. On 22.1.1987 sGhool was taken over and the stipulations regarding the norms to be adopted were worked out. As per clause (3) of the agreement, the Government was not required to take under the control all the members of the staff and the Government was c authorized to take those employees who fulfill the prescribed qualification for the posts. On 22.5 .1987 a corrigendum was issued, essential portion of which reads as under: "In the order No.6/5-83-SE(I) dated 22.01.1987, the following corrigendum is hereby made in the 6th and 7th lines of condition[D ] No. I below para 1 :- |corrigendum is hereby made in the 6th and 7th lines of conditionis hereby made in the 6th and 7th lines of conditionhereby made in the 6th and 7th lines of condition<br>No. I below para 1 :-I below para 1 :-:-|corrigendum is hereby made in the 6th and 7th lines of conditionis hereby made in the 6th and 7th lines of conditionhereby made in the 6th and 7th lines of condition|corrigendum is hereby made in the 6th and 7th lines of conditionis hereby made in the 6th and 7th lines of conditionhereby made in the 6th and 7th lines of condition| |---|---|---| |Originalentry|entrytobesubstituted|| |'atthetimeoftaking|"atthetimeitwas|| |over'.'|decidedbytheGovt.to<br>takeoverthisschoolin|E| ||principleviz.|| ||26.8.83"|| Writ petition was filed by the respondents with a prayer to absorb them in Government service w.e.f 22.1.1987. A reply was filed clearly F taking the stand that the names of the respondents did not exist in the staff statement which was prepared by the erstwhile management of the school at the time principle decision was taken. Subsequently, their names were included. As per the Government order, the school was taken over with staff existing on 28~6.1983. Therefore, the Government was not G bound to absorb the respondents. The learned Single Judge of the High Court granted the stay and the stay order was continued. Subsequently, by order dated 29. l.2003, the learned Single Judge it was _held_ that though the respondents were employed between 28.6.1983 to 26.1.1987, there was need for teachers and laboratory Assistants and, therefore, they H 188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R. _-"(_ - A should be absorbed. The appellants filed Letters Patent Appeal which, as noted above, was dismissed on the ground that the respondents were continuing since 1987.