Holding

The Supreme Court held that J.B.T. is equivalent to O.T. as per the State's 1976 notification, and the appeal challenging this equivalence was dismissed.

Summary

The respondents, language teachers employed by the State of Haryana, sought promotion on the ground that the Certificate of Junior Basic Training (J.B.T.) should be treated as equivalent to the required Orientation Training (O.T.). The State had issued a notification on 12 March 1976 declaring J.B.T. equivalent to O.T., a position reiterated in subsequent letters, including one dated 5 May 1995. The Punjab and Haryana High Court accepted this equivalence and ordered the respondents’ promotion, which the State appealed, contending that Rule 2(2) of the Punjab Educational Service (Class‑III) Rules, 1995, barred such an equivalence and that no Article 136 order was required. The Supreme Court held that the State’s own conduct and notification established the equivalence, there being no contrary rule, and that recognition of equivalence does not require an Article 136 order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the decision was declared prospective.

Issues considered

Whether the Junior Basic Training (J.B.T.) certificate is equivalent to Orientation Training (O.T.) for promotion of language teachers under the Punjab Educational Service Rules.
Whether the High Court was authorized to treat J.B.T. as equivalent to O.T. in the absence of an explicit rule.
Whether recognition of equivalence between qualifications requires an order under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Whether Rule 2(2) of the Punjab Educational Service (Class‑III) Rules, 1995, precludes treating J.B.T. as equivalent to O.T.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 136

Subjects

Service lawPromotionEquivalence of qualificationsJunior Basic TrainingOrientation TrainingState notificationProspective operationArticle 136Punjab Educational Service Rules

Judgment

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. A
v.
INDIRA KUMARl

AUGUST 13, 2003

[V .N. KHARE, CJ., AND S.B. SINHA, J.] B

Service Law:

Posts of Language teacher-Promotion to-Educational qualifications
for-Earlier, besides other qualifications, Orientation Training (0. T.) was C
essential for promotion to language teacher-Later, Junior Basic Training
Course(JBTC), was treated equtvalent to 0. T.-0. T. or equivalent qualification
was prescribed for appointment to language teacher-Held, by reason of
Notification dated 12.3.1976, J.B.T.C. has been recognized as equivalent to
0. T. whereon a judicial seal has been put-In absence of any contrary D
provisions in the Rules, the contention that High Court could not have
treated JBTC equivalent to 0. T rejected-This decision directed to be treated
as prospective-Prospective Operataion of Judgment.

Constitution of India, 1950:
E
Article 136-Treating of different degrees as equivalent-For the
purpose of arriving at a decision as to whether one degree is equivalent to
another or not, no order in terms of Article 136 of the Constitution is
required to be passed-The decision of the State can also be inferred from
its conduct-On/acts, State of Haryana on 12.3.1976 gave out that JBTC is
equivalent to 0. T.-Even the Director of Secondary Education by letter dated F
5. 5.1995 conveyed the decision of the State to the said effect.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4301of1999.

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.3.1998 of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in C.W.P. No. 2439of1998. G
WITH

C.A. Nos. 1280/2002, 4995-5000, 4627 and 5002 of2003.

469 H
470 SUPREME-COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Kavita Wadia and
Neeraj Kumar Jain for the Appellants.

Mahabir Singh, Ajay Pal, Rakesh Dahiya, Debasis Misra and S. Srinivasan
for the Respondent.

B Th<:: following Order of the Court was delivered:

The respondents herein were in the service of the appellant-State as
Language Teachers. They were appointed a long time back.

The question which arises for consideration in these appeals is as to
C whether the Certificate of Junior Basic Training Course (for short "J.B.T.') is
equivalent to that of Orientation Training (for short "O.T.").

The essential qualification for holding of the post of Language Teacher
is said to be "(i) Metric from Punjab University or Board of School Education
Haryana or an equivalent qualification recognised by the said Board; (ii)
D Prabhakar (Honours in Hindi) from a recognised University; and (iii) pass in
LTC (OT) examination in Hindi conducted by the Haryana Education
Department or an equivalent qualification recognised by the Haryana Education
Department-OR-Graduate from a recognised University with Hindi as an elective
subject/M.A. in Hindi from a recognised University/B.A. (Honours) in Hindi
E with B.T./B.Ed. or equivalent in all the cases. "The said qualification was laid
down by the appellant-State by amending the Punjab Educational Service
Rules, 1955 by reason of Punjab Educational service, Class-III School Cadre
(First Amendment) Rules, 1995.

It is not in dispute that in the 1955 Rules, the requirement was to hold
F the· qualification of STC or OT Course. The course of study for JBT was
started in 1957. On or about 12.3.1976, however, the State itself prescribed the
qualifications for appointment of language Teachers, the material part whereof
is as under:

"Subject : Qualifications for the appointment of language teachers.
G

Hindi Teachers Metric Prabhakar O.T. or J.B.T. Punjabi Teachers Matric-
Giani O.T. or J.B.T. Sanskrit Teachers Shastri-0.T."

H Yet again in the year 1983 some instructions were issued for appointment of
STATE v. INDIRA KUMAR! 471
Language Teachers wherein the qualifications were laid down as Matriculation A
Prabhakar, L.T.C. or O.T. or equivalent qualification recognised by the State.
When til.e said instructions were issued, a writ petition was filed by the
.I
Teachers in service on an apprehension that their services would be tenninated .
The said writ petition titled Gurcharan Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana
and Ors. being Civil Writ Petition No. 206 of 1984 came to be decided and B
was allowed by a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and it was
held as under :

" .... In the face of this factual position, the respondent authorities,
to my mind, were entitled to prt::scribe any other course and more
particularly J.B.T. Course as equivalent to O.T. This was precisely so C
done by these authorities vide Annexure P-1 not only this when a
clarification was sought by one Shakuntla Sharma Hindi Teacher in a
private school vide Annexure P-3 dated April 5, 1979, the office of the
Director of Public Instructions, Haryana informed her that the
qualifications for the post of Hindi Teacher should be Metric (Full)
Prabhakar with O.T. (Hindi) of J.B.T. course (Two years course). This D
communication marks it more than clear that with the abolition of S. T.
Course with effect from the year 1958 the J.B. T. Course which admittedly
was started in the year 1957, was either taken as a substitute for the
first course of atleast equivalent to O.T. course....."

It is not in dispute that the special leave petition against the said decision E
has already been dismissed.

As despite possessing the said qualifications the respondents were not
promoted, they filed writ petitions before the Punjab & Haryana High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By reason of the impugned
judgment, the High Court relying upon the decision in_ Gurcharan Singh F
(supra) allowed the writ petitions directing that the case of the respondents
be considered for promotion treating the J.B.T. Course as equivalent to that
of O.T. in Hindi. It is against the said judgment, the State of Haryana is in
appeal before us.
G
Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the State urged that
in view of sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of the Punjab Educational Service, Class-III,
School Cadre (First Amendment) Rules, 1995, the High Court was not entitled
to equate J.B.T. to O.T. (Hindi). Learned Additional Solicitor General urged
that since the State of Haryana has not recognised J.B.T. as equivalent to O.T.
(Hindi), therefore the view taken by the High Court is erroneous. We do not H
472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A find any merit in the contention.
It is not in dispute that for the purpose of arriving at a decision as to
whether one degree is equivalent to another or not, no order in terms of •.
Article 136 of the Constitution is required to be passed. The decision of the
State can also be inferred from its conduct. As noticed hereinabove, the State
B of Haryana as far back as on 12th March, 1976 gave out that Certificate of
J.B.T. is equivalent to that of O.T. The same was acted upon, even the
judgment of the High Court in Gurcharan Singh (supra) was given effect to
and the respondents were appointed having regard to the aforementioned
fact-situation. In fact, even the Director of Secondary Education by a letter
C dated 5th May, 1995 conveyed the decision of the State to the said effect in
the following terms :
"Vide Directorate Memo No. 14/25-77-Estt. (3)/dated 3.6.77
instructions were issued for the promotion of J.B.T. teachers who
acquire the qualifications of Prabhakar/Giani/Shastri during their service
period on the posts of Sanskrit/Hindi/Punjabi teachers . And vide
D memo No . 13/48/77 Estt . III (3) dated 28.11.84 of the Directorate
promotions on such posts were banned till further orders.
Now after reconsideration on this matter , Govt. has taken decision
that promotion of J.B.T. Teachers on the post of Hindi/Punjabi/Sanskrit
teachers be restarted to the extent 25% but only those JBT teachers
E be promoted on these posts who acquired the requisite qualification
during the service for those posts.
The prescribed qualification for these posts is as under :

(1) Sanskrit Teachers :

F (2) Hindi Teachers :-
(i) Metric Pass (Full Subjects) .
(ii) Pabhakar (Honours in Hindi ) from a recognised University.
(iii) Pass in L.T.C. (O.T) in Hindi conducted by the Haryana Education
Department or equivalent qualification recognised by Haryana
G Education Department .
OR
Graduate from a recognised University with Hindi as an elective subject/
M.A. In Hindi from a recognised University/B.A (Honours) in Hindi
with B.T./B.ED. Or equivalent in all the cases."
H
STATE v. INDIRA KUMARI 473
In this view of the matter and particularly having regard to the fact that A
by reason of the aforementioned notification dated 12th March, 1976, J.B.T.
has been recognised as equivalent to O.T. , where over a judicial seal has
been put, in the absence of any contrary provisions in the rules the submission
of the learned Additional Solicitor General cannot be accepted.

For all these reasons, we do not find any merit in these appeals . They B
fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

We may, however, make it clear that this decision shall be treated as
prospective.

RP. Appeals dismissed. C