Aided educational institutions, while bound by the principles of natural justice, may be granted partial relief in cases of illegal termination of services, considering the interests of both the teacher and the institution.

D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. The petitioner who worked as teacher-in-charge in the school managed and administered by respondent Educational Society by name Shri Sanatan Dharam Shiksha Samiti, for a period of about ten years, challenges in this petition the inpugned order dated 23-10-1981 (Annexure-L) and the order dated 8-11-1981 (Annexure-B), terminating her sendees from the school.

2. Law is now settled that a registered educational society, receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government and controlled in the matters of its management and service conditions of its employees, governed by the provisions of an enactment such as, in the present case, by Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shishan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmchariyon Ke Vetano Ka Sandaya) Adhiniyam, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. (See : Francis John v. Director of Education and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 423).

3. The petitioner was appointed in the school pursuant to an advertisement and after selection to the post of 'teacher-in-charge' by order of appointment issued in the year 1971. A disciplinary enquiry was held against her on charges, amongst others, of financial irregularities, indiscipline and insubordination. By order passed on 23-10-1981 (Annexure-L), the petitioner was found guilty of the charges levelled against her and by way of punishment, her status as 'teacher-in-charge' was taken away. But taking a sympathetic view of the matter on the basis of a letter of apology, submitted by her, it was directed that she would be permitted to continue her service as a teacher in the school. It was directed in the above letter that she might give her option in writing within a period of three days from the date of the order to continue her services in the school as a teacher. On her request the period of her re-joining as a teacher was alleged to have been extended up to 6-11-1981.

4. By the subsequent impugned order passed on 8-11-1981 (Annexure-B), the respondent society terminated the services of the petitioner as teacher only on the ground that in spite of the opportunity having been given to the petitioner to resume the work in the school as a teacher, on or before 6-11-1981, she failed to report on duty.

5. The petitioner had earlier challenged her termination in writ petition (M. P. No. 2550 of 1983), which was dismissed summarily on 7-2-1985 with the direction that the appeal preferred by the petitioner under the Act be disposed of within a period of two months. The appeal "preferred by the petitioner under the provisions of the Act now stands dismissed and the action of the Managing Committee confirmed by the Joint Director of Public Instructions, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur, by its order dated 4-11-1985 (Annexure-V).

6. The petitioner's case in this petition is that pursuant to the directions of the Managing Committee, terminating her services as 'teacher-in-charge' and continuing her sendees as 'teacher' in the school, she had on the due date that is 6-11-1981, submitted a joining report (Annexure-A8), but she was not permitted to resume her duties, nor allowed to sign the attendance register. On 8-11-1981 by the impugned order her services as teacher were terminated. The petitioner had described the action of the Managing Committee as wholly arbitrary and in violation of the provisions of the Act.

7. The petition was filed in the year 1986 after the decision of the appellate authority. All the respondents, including respondent No. 1, the Society have been duly served with the notice of the petition. Shri L. S. Baghel, advocate has also filed his vakalatnama for respondent No. 1 Society, but no return has been filed controverting the allegations made by the petitioner in the petition including the alleged fact of her reporting on duty on 6-11-1981. No arguments were also addressed on behalf of respondent No. 1 at the time of hearing. The Government Advocate appearing for the State made an attempt to supp