- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ravinder Sharma (Smt) And Another v. State Of Punjab And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Smt. Ravinder Sharma (Appellant 1) was initially appointed as a clerk in the Punjab Public Service Commission (the “Commission”) on 8 June 1967 through the Employment Exchange. At that time she possessed only a Third-Division Matriculation, whereas Regulation 7 of the Punjab Public Service Commission (State Service Class III) Regulations, 1967 required a First-Division Matriculation or higher. She was later selected by the Subordinate Service Selection Board and appointed on a regular basis on 28 August 1968, and promoted to Assistant on 1 February 1974.
Because she lacked the prescribed qualification, the Commission sought governmental relaxation of Regulation 7 on her behalf. The Government declined, after which the Commission issued a memorandum dated 26 April 1977 stating that her continuance could not be allowed and inviting her to seek fresh appointment elsewhere.
Along with similarly situated employees, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 1331 of 1977 before the High Court. The writ petition and a subsequent Letters Patent Appeal were dismissed. The present civil appeal challenges those decisions.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an appointment made in contravention of the educational qualifications mandated by Regulation 7 of the 1967 Regulations is void and liable to be set aside.
- Whether the principle of estoppel prevents the Commission and the Government from questioning the appointment when they were aware of the appellant’s qualifications at the time of appointment.
- Whether the appellant’s subsequent acquisition of the requisite qualification (B.A. in 1977) entitles her to regularisation from that date.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- She never concealed her academic record; the Commission knowingly appointed her, hence she should not suffer for the employer’s lapse.
- The Commission’s conscious act of appointment gives rise to estoppel against the State from taking adverse action.
- She has since become fully qualified under Regulation 7, warranting regularisation from the date she acquired the degree.
Government’s Arguments
- The appellant’s lack of qualification—not concealment—is the core defect; the appointment violated Regulation 7 at inception.
- The Government lawfully refused relaxation; consequently, the Commission’s memorandum directing discontinuance is valid.
- Because the initial appointment is void, estoppel cannot operate to validate it.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined Regulation 7, which requires a clerk appointed by direct recruitment to be either a Graduate, an Intermediate Second Class, or a Matriculate First Class. The appellant admitted she met none of these criteria at the time of her initial appointment. The Commission’s recommendation for relaxation was rejected by the Government, leaving the defect uncured. Therefore, the Court held the appointment “bad” ab initio.
The Court rejected the plea of estoppel, reasoning that a violation of a statutory provision cannot be validated merely because the appointing authority was aware of the defect. Absence of concealment does not override the mandatory qualifications prescribed by Regulation 7. The High Court’s assessment was endorsed in full.
On the appellant’s request for regularisation after obtaining her B.A. in 1977, the Court left the matter to the discretion of the Government, expressly stating that it would be “appropriate” for the Government to consider such a request but declining to issue any direction.
Holding and Implications
DISPOSED OF – The civil appeal was dismissed and the High Court’s judgment affirmed. The Court, however, permitted the Government to consider regularising the appellant from the date she satisfied the educational requirements.
Implications: The decision confirms that appointments made in violation of explicit statutory qualifications are void and that estoppel cannot cure such illegality. The ruling impacts only the parties involved and does not establish new precedent beyond reaffirming settled principles.
S. Mohan, J.— The facts lie in a narrow compass.
2. Appellant 1, Smt Ravinder Sharma was appointed as a clerk in the Punjab Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’) through the Employment Exchange on 8-6-1967. At that time, she possessed the educational qualification as Matriculate III Class while the rule required Matriculate I Class. Later on, she qualified from the Subordinate Service Selection Board and was appointed as a clerk on regular basis on 28-8-1968. She was promoted as Assistant on 1-2-1974.
3. Appellant 2, Surjit Singh was appointed as Clerk in the Commission through the Employment Exchange on 8.6.1967 He had passed Higher Secondary Examination in III Division. After qualifying from the Selection Board, he was appointed as a clerk on regular basis on 28-8-1968. He was further promoted as Assistant on 26-6-1974. Since the second appellant has died, his case need not be considered.
4. The appellant did not possess the requisite qualification as required under Regulation 7 of the Punjab Public Service Commission (State Service Class III) Regulations, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Regulations’). Therefore, the Commission recommended to the Government that the qualification required under Regulation 7 of the Regulations might be relaxed in the case of the appellant. The Government declined to accede to the request. Thereupon, the appellant was served the following memo by the Commission:
“From
H.S Chatwal, PCS, Secretary,
Punjab Public Service Commission,
Patiala.
To
Smt Ravinder Sharma,
Assistant
No. B.F/1015/72.CAG/7834 dated Patiala, 26-4-1977.
Sub: Regulations of Service of Clerk.
Memo
Reference correspondence resting with the Commission letter No. B.F 1015/72.CAG/31895 dated 13-1-1975.
Keeping in view your representation sent in reply to the memorandum mentioned above, your case for regularisation of your service by relaxing the relevant provisions, was referred to the Punjab Government in the General Services Branch. The Government has again rejected the proposal, because you did not fulfil the qualifications of Matric I Class or Intermediate II Class or B.A laid down in Regulation 7 of the Punjab Public Service Commission (State Service Class III) Regulations, 1967 at the time of your initial appointment nor do you fulfil the condition at the present moment. As such your initial appointment as Clerk in the Commission was not in accordance with the abovementioned Regulations.
Under the circumstances, it is clear that your continuance as Clerk in the Commission without fulfilling the initial qualifications cannot be allowed. The Government have informed that they can at the most consider your appointment/adjusting in some other department as a fresh candidate keeping in view your merit and in accordance with the rules. It can only be done if you submit an application giving full details of your educational qualifications, experience etc. addressed to the Chief Secretary to Government, Punjab. In case you are aware about the vacancies lying vacant in some other departments, you can mention the same in your application.
Your reply should reach the Commission within four days from the receipt of this letter, failing which the case will be decided in accordance with the rules. It is also made clear to you that no more representation on the subject will be entertained from you.”
5. There were also similarly placed persons. All of them filed Writ Petition No. 1331 of 1977 before the High Court challenging the respective orders issued to them. However, in this appeal, we are concerned only with Appellant 1, Smt Ravinder Sharma.
6. Before the High Court, the argument was that inasmuch as the appellant did not conceal her qualification, she could not be blamed if she had been appointed. Therefore, no order adverse to her, could ever have been passed.
7. This was opposed on behalf of the Government stating that the petitioner (appellant herein) was not charged for concealing the qualifications. On the contrary, she did not possess the requisite qualifications as required under Regulation 7 of the Regulations at the time of her appointment. Though the Commission made a request for relaxation, that was not acceded to. The result of it would be, the initial appointment itself was bad. Therefore, the impugned order dated 26-4-1977 came to be passed. It is perfectly valid.
8. The High Court on a consideration of the above arguments dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioners before it did not conceal the qualification per se would not validate their appointments when such appointments were not in conformity with Regulation 7 of the Regulations.
9. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 935 of 1983 before the High Court which was also dismissed. Hence, the present appeal.
10. The same point is reiterated in this appeal that the appellant cannot be blamed for the improper appointment. The Commission was conscious of the lack of qualification yet, it chose to appoint the appellant. Therefore, the principle of estoppel will apply. In any event, as of today, the appellant is fully qualified under Regulation 7 of the Regulations.
11. We are of the view that no exception could be taken to the impugned judgment. The appellant is not found fault with for concealment of qualification. On the contrary, what is complained against her is lack of qualification. We may now extract Regulation 7 of the Regulations. It reads as under:
“Recruitment to the service shall be made—
(e) In the case of Junior scale stenographers
(iii) by direct appointment of a person who is a Graduate or Intermediate second class or a Matriculate first class of a recognised university and qualifies such tests as may be prescribed by the Establishment Member.
(f) In the case of clerks—
(iii) by direct appointment of a person who is a Graduate or Intermediate second class or Matriculate first class of a recognised university and has passed a qualifying examination conducted by the Board.”
12. The appellant was directly appointed. In such a case, the qualification must be either:
(i) a Graduate/Intermediate second class or,
(ii) Matric first class.
Admittedly, the appellant did not possess this qualification. That being so, the appointment is bad. The Commission recommended to the Government for relaxation of the qualification under Regulation 7 of the Regulations. The Government rejected that recommendation. Where, therefore, the appointment was clearly against Regulation 7, it was liable to be set aside. That being so, no question of estoppel would ever arise. We respectfully agree with the view taken by the High Court.
13. It was, however, submitted that the appellant had passed her B.A examination in 1977 and had become a graduate and that therefore, her case may be considered for regularisation on merits with effect from the date of acquiring necessary qualification adumbrated under Regulation 7. The Government is at liberty to do so. It may also be appropriate for the Government to consider this clause. We do not express any opinion on this aspect. The civil appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
Alert