Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. KRISHNA DEVI GUPTA versus COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Krishna Devi Gupta v. Committee Of Management & Others - WRIT - A No. 31223 of 1999 [2007] RD-AH 8466 (4 May 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 26

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31223 of 1999

Smt. Krishna Devi Gupta

Vs

The Committee of Management of Sri Shah Lal Chand Jain Bal Vikas Samiti Chirgaon District Jhansi & Others

~~~~

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

By means of this writ petition the petitioner has sought the following reliefs : -

A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28.6.1999 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) passed by respondent no. 2.

B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to pay her full salary with effect from 5.12.1998 till the date she is allowed to join duties and the respondents should also continue to pay her salary regularly as and when it falls due during the pendency of the writ petition.

C. Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice.

D. Award costs of the petition throughout in favour of the petitioner against the respondents 1 and 2.

By the impugned order dated 28.6.1999 the services of the petitioner have been terminated.

The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Committee of Management of Sri Shah Lal Chand Jain Bal Vikas Samiti, Chirgaon, Jhansi (in short the Society) runs Adarsh Junior High School at Chirgaon District Jhansi (in short the School) which is an unaided recognised school. The petitioner is the wife of late Sri Santosh Kumar Khurd, who was Assistant Teacher in the School. He died in harness allegedly due to harassment and torture by the Manager of the School by paying him a very meagre salary.  

The petitioner having Master of Arts degree applied for her appointment as Assistant Teacher under the Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. The Committee of Management also vide resolution dated 8.2.1994 appointed the petitioner as the Assistant Teacher on probation in the Primary Section of the School in the salary of Rs. 600/- per month. It is alleged that the petitioner worked for about four years on the same salary but it was not enhanced despite her repeated requests even though she had in the mean time also passed B. Ed. Examination in 1996.

The teachers of the School had given a representation dated 6.11.1996 to the Manager as well as other office bearers including member of the Committee of Management of the School demanding the pay scale, leave, provident fund, benefits of E.S.I. Scheme and medical facilities which were given to the teachers of such schools in accordance with the Government Orders issued by the State Government from time to time. The copies of the representation were also sent to Collector, Jhansi as well as to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari.

It is alleged that when the representation was pressed by the teachers including the petitioner, it is alleged that the same annoyed the President and Manager of the Committee of Management of the School, respondent nos. 1 and 2 and as a consequence thereof respondent nos. 1 and 2 suspended the petitioner vide order dated 5.12.1998 on the charges that she did not produce some documents which she was asked to produce.

Her explanation dated 31.11.1998 regarding putting of forged signatures on the attendance register; non-examination of exercise books of the students; shirking from teaching work; and always remaining sick etc. were also not found to be satisfactory. The petitioner submitted her detailed reply denying the charges and asserts that the Manager and the Head Master of the School were having evil eye on her. However, the services of the petitioner were terminated by the Manager of the School vide order dated 28.6.1999 which is impugned in the writ petition.  

At the time of admission the Court granted interim order dated 29.7.1999 by which the operation of the impugned order dated 28.6.1999 was stayed till further orders.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither before passing of order of suspension nor before issuance of termination order of the petitioner, approval of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari was taken which is an essential requirement under Rule 11 of the U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and other Conditions) Rules, 1975. It is stated that without approval of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari no teacher working in a recognised Basic School can either be suspended or terminated.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that under Rule 15 of the U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior and High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978, neither the Manager or Head Master can suspend or terminate the services of a teacher of a recognised Basic School.

The learned counsel lastly contends that the impugned order is also bad in law being passed in violation of principles of natural justice without  affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.  

From the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it does not appear that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari had given approval to either suspension or termination order. In para 7 of the supplementary counter affidavit it has been averred that approval was sought for suspension but the same having not been granted till the expiry period the suspension was deemed to have been granted. With regard to approval of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari to the termination of services of the petitioner, it is averred that the same was not required as the appointment of the petitioner was under private arrangement.

The contention of the respondents that the appointment and termination of services of the petitioner was under a private arrangement has no force. Even if for the sake of argument it is not denied by the respondents that the Basic Shiksha Adhikari has regulatory powers under the U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and other Conditions) Rules, 1975 read with U.P. Recognised Basic Schools (Junior and High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978.  It is to be remembered that statutory Rules and Regulations have been provided to do away this element of arbitrary and whimsical orders which were being passed by the management of the private institutes. If the Basic Shiksha Adhikari did not give its approval to the arbitrary and illegal orders of suspension of the petitioner passed by the school management, it would not fall within the ambit of 'deemed approval' as withholding of approval by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari  in my opinion is a positive act of not granting approval.

The respondents cannot change their stand at their convenience by seeking approval of their order of suspension but not for termination. Admittedly the respondents had sought approval of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari for suspension though the same was not granted till the expiry of the period and under rule if their stand is taken to be true, they should also have sought approval for termination and similarly if the same would not have been granted till the expiry of the period thereafter they could treat the termination to have been approved.    

Admittedly approval to order of suspension was not granted by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. Admittedly also the manager did not seek approval of order of termination passed by him without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. In these circumstances the order of termination deserves to be quashed.  

After giving thoughtful consideration to the above facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is quashed. The matter deserves to be remanded for decision by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari for passing appropriate orders on the termination order as well as for payment of salary of the petitioner.

No order as to costs.

Dated: 4.5.2007

Rpk/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.