Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Cal) 688

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI
M.V. MURALIDARAN, J.
Sagar Chakraborty – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.A. No. 1159 of 2023
Decided on : 25-01-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Amalesh Roy, Mr. Suman Sehanabis (Mondal)
For the Respondent: Mr. Sudipto Kumar Mazumder, Ld. DSGI, Mr. Sourab Kar, Mr. Narendra Nath Das, Mr. Pragyadip Roy Basunia, Mr. Madhab Kumar Roy,

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner, as an employee of a school with a public element in imparting education, was entitled to avail the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court emphasized the public element in the action complained of and the violation of statutory provisions in the termination of the petitioner's service.

Headnote:
Termination - Service Rules - Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - The judgment discussed the application of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 in the termination of an Assistant Teacher's service in a private school affiliated with CBSE.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher at a school affiliated with CBSE, was terminated from service without following the procedures as enumerated in the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking reinstatement, invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the termination of the petitioner's service was arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of the statutory provision of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to avail the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India due to the public element in imparting education by the respondent school authority.
Issues: The issues included the application of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 in the termination of the petitioner's service, the violation of principles of natural justice, and the entitlement of the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner, being the arm of the respondent school, was entitled to avail the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India due to the public element in imparting education by the respondent school authority. The court also emphasized that the termination of the petitioner's service without conducting any disciplinary proceedings and in violation of the statutory provision was arbitrary, illegal, and void.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the impugned termination letter was set aside, and the respondent school authorities were directed to reinstate the petitioner into service within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the court's order.

JUDGMENT :

M.V. Muralidaran, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to rescind/cancel and/or withdraw the letter of termination dated 26.3.2023 issued by the 7th respondent and to direct the respondent authorities to forthwith reinstate the petitioner in service in the concerned school.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 8.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was serving as an Assistant Teacher in a school, namely Suresh Chandra Ghosh English Academy at Mathabhanga, Cooch Behar. According to the by-laws of the CBSE Rules, 2018, the teaching and non-teaching staff of its affiliated institutions are to be guided by the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1965. While so, the school authorities, all on a sudden, terminated the petitioner from his service vide letter of termination dated 26.03.2023 without following the procedure as enumerated in Rules 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Rules of 1965. Due to which, the petitioner has been deprived from defending himself by filing written statement of defense, which caused utter violation of the principles of natural justice as well as constitutional right of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for interference of this Court by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Respondents 4 to 8 filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the Government of India, Ministry of Education and Social Welfare, has no business with the present dispute as the dispute is purely private in nature and not statutory one. The institution CBSE is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and it is an autonomous registered body having its own rules and by-laws for recognition, control of respective schools and imparting education in Higher Secondary level. But none of the rules and by-laws has come out of any statue or statutory provision. Thus the action/inaction for violation of its rules and by-laws are not the subject of statute or statutory provision of the Government. As such, the action or inaction by the respondent school authority against the teacher is not amenable under writ jurisdiction. It is a dispute between the management of the school and the employee concerned, i.e., private and contractual in nature which has to be dealt with some other appropriate forum as per the rules and by-laws framed by the CBSE or for violation of contractual agreement. The right has also not come up from a statute having enforceability of it. Thus, dispute as arisen in this petition is not statutory relief or the power fountains not from the source of statute. Thus, the present writ petition is not maintainable.

5. It is further stated that the petitioner is in no way an employee of Central Government and, as such, the application of the said Rules as claimed by the writ petitioner, are misconceived and misspelt. The petitioner is not governed by the above noted Central Service Rules. The respondent school authorities have issued the certificate in question in favour of the petitioner for avoiding any future complications in his future life in case of future employment and the school authority has knowingly avoided to mention all other ill-activities of the petitioner therein and, thus, the said letter has got no relevance in this issue. The activities of the petitioner would reveal from the termination letter dated 26.03.2023. The environment in and around the institution at the time termination of the petitioner was so rough and tough that it was urgent and immediate necessity of the institution to deal with the petitioner in such an awkward situation for keeping the peaceful and educational atmosphere of the institution.

6. It is stated that the petitioner was working as a Vice Principal of the institution, but due to his rough, adamant and unbecoming of an ideal teach