Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Manju Rani Chauhan, J.
Smt. Pushpa Srivastava - Petitioner
Vs.
State of U.P. - Respondent
WRIT - A No. - 563 of 2022
Decided On : 31-05-2022
Termination - Employment Dispute - Grant-in-aid Rules, 1949 - The court set aside the termination order dated 03.12.2021 and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner as an Instructor.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was appointed as an Instructor in an institution governed by the grant-in-aid Rules, 1949. She was later promoted to the position of Principal. Subsequently, she was reverted to the post of Instructor and terminated from her employment.
Finding of the Court:
The termination order was passed without proper notice, opportunity of hearing, and inquiry, and was found to be arbitrary, unjust, and against the principles of natural justice.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the termination order, compliance with grant-in-aid Rules, 1949, and the petitioner's conduct in obtaining her appointment letter.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the termination order was based on documents not served upon the petitioner and an ex-parte inquiry report. It also considered the petitioner's unblemished record and the lack of complaints against her prior to her opposition to the Management.
Final Decision: The court set aside the termination order and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner as an Instructor.
JUDGMENT :
Manju Rani Chauhan, J.
1. Heard Mr. Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Santosh Kmar Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 & 6 and Mr. Anil Kumar Singh Baghel, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful functioning of petitioner as Principal in the institution and pay her arrears of salary as well as regular salary and continue the same month to month.
(iii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioner as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.”
3. The Nehru Bal Mandal is a registered society which runs a number of institutions recognized by the Board of Basic Education, Uttar Pradesh, as well as Social Welfare Department. The Silai, Kadhai, Bunai Prakshikshan Evam Utpadan Kendra, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as Institution) is run by the aforesaid Society since 1974 after being recognized by the Social Welfare Department. The aforesaid institution is governed under the provisions of grant-in-aid (Technical or Industrial Institutions) Rules, 1949 (in short Rules, 1949). As per the aforesaid rules, the Committee of Management is empowered to run the institution, appoint the staff of the institution, pay the salary of the staff of the institution. This rule is however silent about the governance of un-aided schools.
4. The petitioner was appointed as Instructor for one year probation period in the Institution on 30.06.1997, after following the proper procedure as provided under law, on account of resignation being tendered by one Instructor, namely, Usha Mishra. The petitioner joined her duty in the Institution on 01.07.1997 and continued up to 25.09.2013. She was confirmed and promoted as Senior Instructor, being Senior most Instructor, she was handed over charge of officiating Principal on 26.09.2013 as the services of the then Principal of the Institution, namely, Chanchal Sharma were terminated by the Committee of Management. The petitioner’s services were regularized as Principal by the then Committee of Management of the Institution on 17.11.2016 on the basis of long and satisfactory service.
5. The Institution where the petitioner was working as Principal was not in grant-in-aid list, therefore, the respondent Committee of Management was continuously approaching the Government for extension and Government grants, ensuingly the State Government took the Institution in grant-in-aid list by order dated 29.12.2017, and sanctioned 7 post. The Director, Social Welfare, U.P., Lucknow, also agreed to proceed for providing revised salary of the employees of the Institution by order dated 12.02.2019, accordingly he asked the Management as well as District Social Welfare Officer, Prayagraj to provide the statement of working employees in the Institution. In furtherance of the above, the District Social Welfare Officer, Prayagraj asked the management to produce the approved list of employees. Subsequently, the then management provided the approved list of employees of the Institution on 14.02.2019, which was inturn approved by the District Social Welfare Officer, Prayagraj and submitted for its approval to the Director, Social Welfare Department on 20.02.2019. The name of the petitioner finds place in the list which establishes that the petitioner was working as regular Principal of
The termination order was found to be arbitrary, unjust, and against the principles of natural justice, leading to its setting aside and the reinstatement of the petitioner.
Appointments obtained through forged documents are void ab initio, and failure to comply with verification processes undermines claims to employment despite long service, reaffirming minority institu....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the void ab-initio nature of the appointment based on forged and fabricated documents, leading to the termination of the petitioner's services.
Disciplinary proceedings against educational staff require an approved Scheme of Administration; absence of such approval renders termination orders void.
Material amounting to stigma need not be contained in the termination order but might be contained in any document referred to in the termination order, and the principles of natural justice must be ....
Termination of a probationary employee for unsatisfactory performance is lawful and non-stigmatic, requiring no formal inquiry or prior warning.
Termination of a probationary employee is lawful if principles of natural justice are followed and performance is deemed unsatisfactory.
Procedural compliance with Regulations 35 to 37 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act is essential in conducting inquiry proceedings and issuing termination orders.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
