Back
1985 Supreme(Bom) 296
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Kantharia H.H., J.
Swaran S. Ahuja.... Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India others.... Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 96 97 of 1985, decided on 4-11-1985.
Advocate appeared :
F.D. Damania with S.H. Kapadia and S.K. Talsania i/by H. Mehta Co., for petitioner.
R.P. Vyas, for respondents Nos. 1 2.
K.A. Mehta i/by Dikshit Maneklala Co., for respondents Nos. 3 4.
An institution or corporate body, though not created by a statute but formed under a general statute, will be an "authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution if it is an "agency" or "instrumentality" of the Government.
Headnote:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 12 - STATE - INSTRUMENTALITY OR AGENCY OF GOVERNMENT - APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS FOR THE BLIND - TERMINATION OF SERVICES - ARBITRARY AND MALA FIDE ACTION - REINSTATEMENT AND BACKWAGES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, highly qualified and experienced teachers in teaching the teachers for the blind, were appointed by the Training Centre for the Teachers of the Visually Handicapped (respondent No. 3) and worked for several years. However, at the beginning of the academic year 1984-85, they were not permitted to join duties and their services were terminated without any valid reasons.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were "the State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and were thus amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the court. The court found that the petitioners were in the continuous permanent employment of respondent No. 3 and that the termination of their services was arbitrary and mala fide, violating Article 14 of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were "the State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the petitioners were in the continuous permanent employment of respondent No. 3? 3. Whether the termination of the petitioners' services was arbitrary and mala fide?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were "the State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution because they were "instrumentalities" or "agencies" of the Government. The court considered the facts that the scheme for the training of teachers for the blind was conceived and evolved by the Government of India, that the entire cost of the course was borne by the Central Government, and that the training institution had to follow the syllabus prescribed by the Central Government. 2. The court found that the petitioners were in the continuous permanent employment of respondent No. 3 because they were appointed in the running salary scale, they were not appointed on a fixed and/or consolidated salary every year, and they were never given any break during the summer vacations. 3. The court held that the termination of the petitioners' services was arbitrary and mala fide because no reasons were assigned for the decision to terminate their services and because the petitioners were not given an opportunity to be heard.
Final Decision: The court allowed both the petitions and directed respondent No. 3 to reinstate the petitioners in their original posts and to pay them full amount of backwages from the day their services were illegally terminated till the day they are reinstated.
2. The petitioners are highly qualified and well experienced teachers and educationists in their own rights following the pious and noble calling of teaching the teachers for the blind. Thus Mrs. Swaran S. Ahuja (in W.P. No. 96 of 1985) is an Honours Graduate from Delhi University. She received training in teaching blind children in U.K. in 1957-58. She has had further training in the field at the Perkins School for the blind in U.S.A. in 1962-63, where her training included a special observation of teacher-education methodology. She had presented many papers relating to the education of the blind and the teacher training at the national and international level. She was an invitee lecturer at the National Academy of Teachers of the blind, Palayamkalli and National Institute for the visually handicapped, Government of India, Dehradoon. She had served on many Committees appointed by the Government of India, National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration and National Association for the Blind. She has compiled the “Hind Braille Shikshak” the only publication in India. Her pamphlet for the guidance of parents of the blind children published by all India Confederation of the Blind, has been translated in many Indian languages. Likewise, Mrs. S.V. Padbidri (in W.P. No. 97 of 1985) is B.A. (Hons.) and holds Diploma in Education issued by the Secondary Teachers Education Board. She also hold a Diploma in Education for the Blind issued by the Perkings Institute, U.S.A. She was Honorary Secretary of Blind Mens' Association from 1952 to 1959. She was instrumental in starting a Braille Library in 1955 for the first time. She worked as an assistant teacher at the Victoria Memorial High School for the blind from 1955 to 1965. She was Honorary Secretary of the National Association of Instructors for the Blind from 1979 to 1983, in which capacity she had convened. All India Conference for the teachers for the blind at Ludhiana in 1985. She had also translated pamphlets in Marathi for the guidance of parents of blind children published by All India Confederation for the blind, New Delhi. But irony of fate is that both the petitioners, unfortunately, got a very shabby and ungrateful treatment at the hand of those who themselves have been rendering yeomen service in the very field of humanitarian cause of helping the blind.
3. Mrs. Ahuja was appointed as Lecturer with effect from July 1, 1967 in the salary grade of Rs. 170-10-290-EB-15-350 by the Honorary Director of the Training Centre for the Teachers of the Visually Handicapped (respondent No. 3). This Centre was formerly known as the Training Institute/Centre for the Teachers for Blind. Similarly, Mrs. Padbidri was appointed as Supervisor in Practice Teaching with effect from July 1, 1965 in the same salary grade. Both were granted five advance increments. They continued working for respondent No. 3 at the place of Victoria Memorial High School for the Blind, Tardeo, Bombay (respondent No. 4) upto the academic year 1983-84 which concluded at the end of April, 1984. Their service record for the entire period was unblemished. There was not even a whisper that they were in any way incompetent in the discharge of their duties. However, when the new academic year 1984-85 began, they were not permitted to join duties by respondent No. 3. New teachers were appointed in their place. Thereafter some correspondence was exchanged between them and their employer respondent No. 3 and others who were connected with their work and ultimately the honorary Secretary of respondent No. 4 wrote to both the petitioners on October 19/29, 1984 that their management had decided not to have them (petitioners) as lecturer and supervisor respectively at the training centre for the teacher of
