1997 Supreme(Bom) 261
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
R.M. Lodha, J.
Akbar Peerbhoy College others ..... Petitioners.
Versus
Mrs.Pramila N. Kutty others ......Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 1524 of 1992, decided on 11-6-1997.
Advocates appeared :
A.N. Maniar, for petitioner.
M.M. Vashi with Ms. Shet, for respondent No. 1.
Ms. Kiran Bagadia, for respondent No. 2.
Headnote:Section 9-Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Rules, 1981, Rules 28(1) and (2)-Termination simplicitor of lecturer on expiry of contract period-Respondent continued as lecturer for 8 years on year to year basis-Further temporary appointment for one year -Then services terminated simplicitor - Validity challenged as Rule 28 of Rules not complied with-Held, termination simplicitor after expiry of contract period not violative of Rule 28(1) or (2)-Moreover respondent not possessing requisite qualification-Termination valid.-If, the appointment order of the present respondent No.1 is seen in the light of the format as provided in Schedule D, it would be apparent that it is in accordance with the said format on material aspects and particulars and is clearly stated in the appointment order, dated 22.6.1989 that her appointment was purely temporary for a period from 26.6.1989 to 20.4.1990 and after the expiry of the said period her services shall stand terminated without any notice. On the basis of this clause and the appointment order of respondent No.1, the services of the respondent No.1 was to come to an end on 20.4.1990 and hence, no notice was required to be given to her. The letter, dated 19.4.1990 is only in the nature of communication addressed to the respondent No.1 herein that it would not be possible to continue her services in the college after expiry of period of her service as stated in the appointment order and the said communication, dated 19.4.1990 by no stretch of imagination could be construed as a termination notice or order of termination. The services of respondent N.O. 1 were to come to an end on 20.4.1990 and accordingly her services stood terminated on that date which was clearly stated in the appointment letter itself and no further termination notice or order of termination was required to be given. The aforesaid observations should not be confused regarding the right of the respondent No. 1 in filing appeal under Section 9 of the Act and challenging her termination, dated 20.4.1990 in accordance with law if she had justifiable grounds for the said purpose.
Rule 28-Schedule-Appointment is temporary and for a fixed period-Service of such temporary employee come to an end, giving of notice under Rule 28(1) is not required-Rule 28(1) does not contemplate nor does it envisage a situation of its compliance where the services of the temporary employee other than on probation comes to end on the date stated in the appointment order. In other words, in a case where appointment of temporary employee is for a fixed period and the services of such a temporary employee comes to an end on the expiry of that fixed period giving of the notice as contemplated under Rule 28(1) is not required to be passed.
Rules 28(1) and (2)-See Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, Section 9.
JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---The petitioner No. 1 Akbar Peerbhoy College of Commerce Economics is a college affiliated to the University of Bombay for its degree classes and recognised by the Government of Maharashtra for its Junior college classes. It receives grant-in-aid from the Government of Maharashtra. The respondent No. 1 Mrs. Pramila N. Kutty was appointed pursuant to her application and interview as a full time lecturer in English in the junior section of petitioner No. 1 college with effect from 27-7-1981 on basic salary of Rs. 500/- plus usual allowances permissible as per the rules in the scale of Rs. 500-900. In the appointment order it was stated that her appointment was for the current academic year only and shall terminate automatically on the last working day of the year i.e. 20-4-1982. The respondent No. 1 is M.A. in English Literature having passed the said post graduate examination in the year 1978. She did her B.Ed. in the year 1981. It appears that the respondent No. 1 was given appointment subsequently by the petitioner for the academic years upto 1989. ON 22-6-1989 the respondent No. 1 was again appointed as a full time lecturer in English in the petitioner No. 1 college with effect from 26-6-1989 or the date she reports for duty. The said appointment was purely temporary for a period from 26-6-1989 to 20-4-1990. It was stated in the said appointment letter that after expiry of the above period her services shall stand terminated without any notice. The terms of her employment and conditions of services was in accordance with the provisions contained in the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the Rules framed thereunder. On 19-4-1990, the Principal of the petitioner No. 1 college informed the respondent No. 1 that it would not be possible to continue with her services in the college with effect from 21-4-1990. Aggrieved by the said communication dated 19-4-1990, which according to the petitioner was her termination from the service, an appeal was preferred by her before the School Tribunal, Bombay. In the appeal, the principal contentions advanced by the respondent No. 1 herein were that she ought to have been issued notice before termination of her services in accordance with Rule 28 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules, 1981. According to her, she was denied fair and reasonable opportunity and the said termination was against the principles of natural justice. It was also contended in the appeal that the communication of termination was signed by the Principal who was not competent to issue termination order.
2.The appeal was contested by the present petitioner before the School Tribunal. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 was employed on purely temporary post and her services came to an end on 20-4-90 since her appointment was only upto that date. According to the petitioner, in view of the terms of the appointment order, no separate order of termination was required and the communication dated 19-4-1990 was not and could not be construed as a termination order. According to the petitioner, in the very nature of appointment of the respondent No. 1, compliance of Rule 28(1) of Rules of 1981 was not required. The petitioner also contended that the respondent No. 1 was not qualified for her permanent appointment as Lecturer in English, Junior College since she did not possess the requisite qualification. Thus, the petitioner prayed before the School Tribunal that the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 had no merit and was liable to be dismissed.
3.The School Tribunal heard the arguments and by the order dated 31-3-1992 allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 herein and set aside the termination notice dated 19-4-1990 and directed the petitioner College to reinstate her to her original post and pay her the differences of emoluments, including pay and allowances from the date of termination of her servi
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
