Padma Sharma and Others vs State of H.P. and Others

V.K. Mehrotra, J.—In a memorandum dated July 20, 1983, the Director of Education, Himachal Pradesh, Outlined a Scheme for one Year Junior Basic Training Condensed Course for Nursery qualified candidates of the State. This Scheme was communicated through a letter of July 23, 1983 from the office of the District Education Officer, Bilaspur (H.P.) to the Headmasters and Heads, of some institutions mentioned in the letter. The Scheme contained in the memorandum .me yeti Gutted several conditions, after living out he elbility, teamed the authorities and take criteria of selection for admission to the GOURSE condition No. 3, amongst those mentioned at the end of title mamotendum, said that:

After successful completion of training employment will - provided to the candidates on their turn subject to availability reposts and, they shall have no claim for appointment, as a matter of right for recruitment. They shall have to appear before the prescribed selection boarding .case their names are sponsored /by the Employment Exchanges. The cost of the training will have to be borne by the candidates.

Padma-Sharma and 53 other Petitioners came to this Court on September 19,1987, seeking a direction that they be'' also admitted to one year Junior Basic Training Condensed Course on the tasks of their qualifications diploma holders in Nursery and Training Course. They said, that prior to the year 1983 the Nursery trained: teachers were all admitted to: the afore said J.B.T. Course on the basis of being qualified in the Nursery Teachers Training Course but, thereafter, the Petitioners, who had rifle m the unwary; training session, 1983-84 had not been admitted to the Course. The-writ petition came up before D and w)Baiehon September24, 1987, for preliminary hearings Thereafter, some before were passed in it from time to time. However, an object on was taken on behalf of the Respondents namely, the State of Himachal Pradesh its Director of Education and District Education Officers, by the learned Advocate General that the petition could not be entertained by this Court. It "had to be transferred for disposal to the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal. The learned Advocate General brought to the notice of the Court the fact that some petitions of tea similar nature had been'' sent by this Courtier- disposal to the State Administrative Tribunal. According him, orders of that nature had been passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 1009 of 1985 (Jai Singh v. State of H.P. on January 2, 1987, Civil Writ Petition No. 442 and of 1987 on November 2, 1987 and Civil Writ Petition; No. 482 of 1987 (Rita Sharma v. State) on November 10, 1987. It was, however, fairly stated that the orders were not of a speaking nature and no reasons were given by the Division Benches for taking the view that the cases were cognizable only by the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal.

The objection of the learned Advocate General was founded on their omissions of Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (briefly "the Act"). The objection did not find favor with the Division Bench before which it was taken in the present writ petition. The Bench felt that the subject matter of the present writ petition was not such which could be said to be covered by the provisions of Section 15 of the Act. By an order dated June 8,1988, the Bench directed that X the papers of the case be placed before Hon''ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench for determination of the question "whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and consider petitions like the present, or the matter should go before the State Administrative Tribunal".

This is how the matter came up before this Full Bench.

Section 15 of the Act deals with the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the State Administrative Tribunals. Sub-section (1) of Section 15 which alone is material, reads:

(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Administrative Tribunal for a State shall exercise, on and from the appointed day all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that day by all courts (except the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the (Constitution) in relation to

(a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any civil service of the State or any civil post under the State;

(b) all service matters concerning a person not being a person referred to in CI, (c) of this Sub-section or a member, person or civilian referred to in CIause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 appointed to any Civil Service of the State or any civil post under the State am prattling to the service of such person in connection with the affairs of the State or of any local or other authority under the control of the State; Government or of any corporation down or controlled by the State Government;

(c) ail service matters pertaining to-service in connection with the affairs of the State concerning a person appointed to any service or post referred to in Clause (b), being a person whose services have been placed by any such local or other authority or corporation or other body as is controlled or owned by the state. Government at, the disposal of the State Government for such a appointment.

The Administrative Tribunal for the State is to exercise jurisdiction in, relation to recruitment and matters concern recruitment'' to any civil, service of the State or any civil post under the State. This is, clear from Clause (a) of Sub-section (1). Clause (ft) is not attracted for, according to its definition in Section 3(q), "service matter" mean "all matters relating to the conditions of service of a person". It is the common case of the parties that the question of any "service matter" does not arise in the present petition.

Recruitment to a service or a civil post connotes the idea of enlistment, acceptance, selection or approval for. Appointment to a service or to a civil post. It embraces within its ambit any step taken by the employer towards enlistment, acceptance, selection or approval fop appointment to a service or a post, It is clear that unless the employer initiates the process towards the aforesaid, it is not possible to say that he has taken any steps towards recruitment to a service or post. In service jurisprudence the phrase ''recruitment'' to a service or a civil post has acquired a definite meaning. According to Webster''s Third New International Dictionary at page T899, ''recruitment'' means the act or process of recruiting or an act of offering inducement to qualified personnel to enter .a particular job or profession. This is the basic characteristic of the term ''recruitment'' in the context of service jurisprudence. We share the view expressed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Basant Lal Malhotra Vs. State of Punjab and Others, when it says; the term ''recruitment'' connotes and clearly signifies- enlistment, acceptance, selection or approval for appointment���...".

The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was enacted as ''an Act to provide for the adjudication or trial by Administrative Tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts.'' The concept of the word recruitment'', as used in Section 15(1)(a) of the Act, can be no different from the one which it bears in service jurisprudence as under stood in this country.

The Scheme provides that after successful. Completion of training, employment will be provided to the candidates on their turn subject to availability of posts and they shall have no claim for appointment as a matter of right for recruitment. This condition: clearly rules out any claim; on the part of the person who is admitted to and obtains training in one year junior Basic Training Condensed Course, to appointment to any service or civil post under the State of Himachal Pradesh by virtue only of having received such training the J.B.T. Condensed Course, only enables a person admitted to it to acquire eligibility for being considered for recruitment to a service or a civil post and no more.

The acquisition of eligibility for appointment by itself, does not amount to recruitment as understood in service law. More so, having regard, to the terms of the Scheme.

An attempt was made to urge that- the acquisition of eligibility for being considered for recruitment by admission to the J B. T. Condensed Course, was one of the ''matters concerning recruitment'' within the ambit of clause (a). It is difficult, however to accept this submission. Merely because the Condensed Course had been started to enable ineligible persons to become eligible for appointment as trained teachers and had been started by the Government with a view to enable such persons to be considered for recruitment, though not necessarily leading to their appointment, the admission to the Condensed Course cannot be treated as a matter concerning recruitment within the meaning of Clause (a). If the submission made on behalf of the Respondents is accepted, it would amount to giving a meaning to the word ''recruitment'', which would not be in consonance with the accepted meaning of that term as understood in the service jurisprudence.

Before a matter can be treated to be one concerning recruitment, it should be shown to be related with the act or process of recruitment or an act of offering inducement to a qualified person to enter a particular job or profession. In other words, it should be a part of a step for enlistment, acceptance/selection or approval for appointment to a service or a civil post. Unless the employer initiates a process towards enlistment, selection or approval for appointment, it is difficult to say that he has ''taken any step towards recruitment to a service or a post. Till the process is so initiated, the mere fact of affording facility to an (ineligible person to acquire eligibility for consideration for i appointment to a service or a civil post cannot be characterized as, a matter, concerning recruitment.

The scheme expressly merrtions that the successful completion of the training will not give rise to a claim for appointment as a matter of right. The matter was put beyond any shadow of doubt by the Director of Primary Education, Himachal Pradesh, by ''intimating all the District Primary Education Officers through his letter of November 27, 1986, that it had been decided by the Government that 50% of J.B.T. vacancies, which were earlier filled up by them, shall thereafter be filled up by the Himachal Pradesh Public'' Service Commission. It is clear, therefore, that the candidates who successfully complete the one year Junior Basic Condensed Course will have to seek employment ''only through the Public Service Commission. The fact of having obtained the training would not give them any right, whatsoever, of seeking'' employment merely because they were admitted to the one'' year Junior Basic Training Condensed Course and had successfully completed it.

We are of opinion that a petition likes the -Present. Where the Petitioners are seeking redress in the matter of their admission to the J.B.T. Condensed Course does not deal with a matter concerning recruitment to civil service or a post under the State of ''Himachal Pradesh. It cannot be directed to be transferred for consideration to the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal. The Petitioners are entitled to Consideration of their petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by this Court.

With this answer, let the petition be now listed before the appropriate Bench for further orders.