Back
2019 Supreme(All) 259
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Mohammad Hasan - Appellant
Vs.
Vice Chancellor, Aligarh Muslim University And Others - Respondents
Writ - A No. 41701 of 2004
Decided On : 30-01-2019
Anita Tripathi, Adv., S.A. Gilani, Adv., S. Shekhar, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the justification for the termination of a probationary teacher under Section 19(3) of the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920, based on a complaint of sexual harassment by a blind student and the findings of a fact-finding inquiry.
Headnote:
Termination - Post Graduate Teacher - Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920, Section 19(3) - The court discussed the termination of a Post Graduate Teacher (Commerce) working in Ahmadi School, part of Aligarh Muslim University, under Section 19(3) of the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920. The court examined the facts and circumstances of the case, including the conduct of the teacher, the complaint of sexual harassment by a blind student, and the findings of a fact-finding inquiry. The court also considered the legal principles regarding termination of a probationer and the special status of teachers in the Indian education system.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Post Graduate Teacher (Commerce) at Ahmadi School, Aligarh Muslim University, challenged the termination of his services under Section 19(3) of the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920. The termination was based on a complaint of sexual assault by a blind student and the findings of a fact-finding inquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the termination of the petitioner was justified based on the complaint and the findings of the fact-finding inquiry. The court emphasized the special status of teachers in the Indian education system and the need to protect students, particularly blind and female students, from misconduct by teachers.
Issues: The issues involved the termination of a probationary teacher under Section 19(3) of the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920, based on a complaint of sexual harassment by a blind student and the findings of a fact-finding inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principles regarding termination of a probationer and the special status of teachers in the Indian education system. It considered the need to protect students, particularly blind and female students, from misconduct by teachers, and the justification for a summary inquiry in such cases.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court found that the termination of the petitioner was justified based on the complaint and the findings of the fact-finding inquiry. The court emphasized the special status of teachers in the Indian education system and the need to protect students, particularly blind and female students, from misconduct by teachers.
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Heard Sri Tripathi B.G. Bhai, Advocate, holding brief of Ms. Anita Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Tirath Nath Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shyam Shekhar, learned counsel for respondents and perused the record.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed by Mohammad Hasan, a Post Graduate Teacher (Commerce) working in Ahmadi School (hereinafter referred to as "School"), which is part of Aligarh Muslim University (hereinafter referred to as "A.M.U."), assailing order dated 27.09.2004 passed by Vice Chancellor (hereinafter referred to as "V.C.") under Section 19(3) of Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1920") terminating services of petitioner by giving him salary of two months in lieu of notice.
3. Facts in brief giving rise to present writ petition are that A.M.U. is a Central University governed by the provisions of Act, 1920. School is maintained, run, supervised and controlled by A.M.U. School is imparting education to blind students upto High School.
4. A temporary vacancy of Post Graduate Teacher (Commerce) (hereinafter referred to as "P.G.T. (Commerce)") fell vacant due to suspension of one Hashim Ali Khan, hence vacancy was advertised. Selection was made and one Mrs. Farah Tasneem selected and recommended for appointment as P.G.T. (Commerce). She was issued letter of appointment on 02.02.1999 but she failed to join. Petitioner was next in waiting list. Therefore, he was recommended and letter of appointment was issued on 06.03.1999 appointing him for a period of one year or till vacancy exist or until further orders, on such terms and conditions as applicable to temporary appointments. Petitioner joined his duties as P.G.T. (Commerce) on 09.03.1999. Since term of appointment of petitioner was going to expire, vide order dated 23.02.2000 it was extended for a further period of one year or till vacancy exists or until further orders, whichever is earlier, with effect from 09.03.2000.
5. Subsequently, Hashim Ali Khan was dismissed from service. Vacancy of P.G.T. (Commerce) teacher became substantive. Consequently, fresh letter of appointment dated 21.09.2000 was issued to petitioner appointing him for a period of one year or till further orders, whichever is earlier, with effect from the date he joins, on such terms and conditions as applicable to temporary appointees. Thereafter, tenure of temporary appointment of petitioner was extended for one month with effect from 01.09.2002, vide order dated 07.10.2002; and for a period of two months vide order dated 25.11.2002.
6. Thereafter, selection for substantive appointment on the post of P.G.T. (Commerce) was held and letter of appointment dated 08.03.2003 was issued appointing petitioner as P.G.T. (Commerce) on probation for a period of one year. Pursuant to aforesaid appointment, petitioner joined on 12.03.2003. The probation period was going to expire on 13.3.2004. Principal of School recommended petitioner for confirmation stating that his work and conduct is satisfactory. However, Vice-Chancellor of University extended petitioner's probation for period of six months, which was communicated to petitioner vide letter dated 25.2.2004, issued by Deputy Registrar (Administration-T). Six months' probation was extended from 12.03.2004. Again probation period was extended by two months by Vice Chancellor, which was communicated to petitioner by Assistant Registrar's letter dated 18.9.2004. Ultimately, vide impugned order dated 27.9.2004, exercising power under Section 19(3) of Act, 1920, petitioner's services have been dispensed with.
7. It is contended that aforesaid termination amounts to removal from service. It is punitive and wholly arbitrary, inasmuch as, work and performance was satisfactory and he was recommended for confirmation by Principal and Manager of School, still has been terminated.
8. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of A.M.U. sworn by
