Back
S.P. Srivastava, J.
Neeti Bhan
vs
Miss Hill Education Society And
Decided on : 6 August, 1998
EDUCATION - TEACHER - SECURITY OF TENURE - STATUTORY PROTECTION - MADHYA PRADESH ASHASKIYA SCHOOL ADHINIYAM, 1975 - MADHYA PRADESH ASHASKIYA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA (ADHYAPAKON TATHYA ANYA KARMACHARIYON KE VETANO KA SANDAYA) ADHINIYAM, 1978 - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - ARTICLE 12 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - PUBLIC DUTY - MANDAMUS - JUDICIAL REVIEW - CONTRACT OF PERSONAL SERVICE - SPECIFIC ENFORCEMENT - INVALIDITY OF TERMINATION OF SERVICE - APPEAL - DELAY - PUBLIC INTEREST - SETTLEMENT OF LEGAL POSITION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher in a private school, challenged the termination of her services by the school management. The school was recognized under the Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya School Adhiniyam, 1975, but the petitioner was not an approved teacher and did not receive grant-in-aid from the State. The school management claimed that the petitioner was not protected by statutory rules and that the school was not an 'authority' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was entitled to security of tenure under the Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya School Adhiniyam, 1975, even though she was not an approved teacher and did not receive grant-in-aid from the State. The court found that the school was a recognized school under the Act and that the petitioner was an employee of a recognized school. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the protection of Section 9(2) of the Act, which prohibited the dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank of an employee of a recognized school without following the prescribed procedure.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to security of tenure under the Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya School Adhiniyam, 1975, even though she was not an approved teacher and did not receive grant-in-aid from the State? 2. Whether the school was an 'authority' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India? 3. Whether the writ petition was maintainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to security of tenure under the Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya School Adhiniyam, 1975, even though she was not an approved teacher and did not receive grant-in-aid from the State. The court found that the school was a recognized school under the Act and that the petitioner was an employee of a recognized school. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the protection of Section 9(2) of the Act, which prohibited the dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank of an employee of a recognized school without following the prescribed procedure. 2. The court held that the school was not an 'authority' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. However, the court held that the writ petition was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the school was exercising public functions and the petitioner had a legal right to continue in service.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order terminating the petitioner's services and directed the school management to pay the petitioner the entire arrears of salary within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.
S.P. Srivastava, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Management of the 'Miss Hill School' terminating her service, the petitioner who had been employed in that 'school' as an Assistant Teacher has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the order and for her reinstatement in service with full back wages.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the respondents.
3. In this case the respondent society running and managing the school as well as the Principal of the School and the State of Madhya Pradesh, who have been arrayed as respondents, have filed separate counter-affidavits/returns in opposition to the writ petition.
4. The facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner is a graduate from Jaipur University. Applications had been invited by the Management running and managing the school from eligible lady candidates having at least five years experience of serving Nursery schools of repute for appointment as a teacher. The petitioner was selected and granted an appointment in the time scale of pay of Rs. 545-10-575-15-800-20-900-25-925 with other allowances sanctioned by the Government from time to time. This appointment was indicated to be of a temporary nature and only upto 30-4-1986. It could be terminated even before this date subject to the need of the school. The petitioner was directed to report for duty in the nursery unit.
5. The Management finding the work and conduct of the petitioner to be satisfactory continued her to be in service, with the result that the conditions indicated in her appointment letter lost their significance as will be apparent from the certificate issued by the Principal of the school, counter-signed by the Deputy Director of Education. The certificate dated 1-10-1993, duly countersigned by the Deputy Director of Education, Gwalior, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure P-5, shows that the petitioner had been continuously working in the 'school' from 24-7-1985 and drawing a salary of Rs. 2,416/- including allowances being placed in the grade of Rs. 1200-2040. An other certificate, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure P-4, issued in the year 1995 shows that she was continuing to be paid salary in the time scale of pay of Rs. 1200-2040 and getting a basic pay of Rs. 1,360/-. It was certified that she had full command over the subject and control on the students, and was studious, hardworking and punctual. The Principal testified that she was popular in the students and had the capacity to co-ordinate with the parents for the all round development of their wards. 5-A. It may be noticed that in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 3 it has not been disputed that the petitioner had to her credit all the minimum educational qualifications and satisfied the eligibility criteria for appointment as an Assistant teacher. She has been continued to be in service for a period of more than ten years and her work and conduct has been found to be satisfactory throughout. There is no grievance against her on this count.
6. The services of the petitioner were however terminated vide the order dated 31-7-1995 on the ground that they were no more required after 31-8-1995. The Management in its counter-affidavit/return has taken up the stand that the services of the petitioner were not protected by statutory rules and no grant-in-aid was paid by the State for payment of salary to her. She was, it is claimed, an unrecognised and unapproved teacher and as such no statutory protection was available to her. It has also been asserted that the respondent-institution is not an 'authority' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is not maintainable. It has further been asserted that the institution is not in a position to bear the financial burden and hence the services of the petitio
AI
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
