1989 Supreme(MP) 561

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
T. N. SINGH, K. K. VARMA, JJ.
B. P. Bansal (Dr.) - Appellant
Versus
M. P. Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog - Respondent
M.P. No. 367 of 1982 (G)
Decided on : 28-03-1989

Headnote:Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karamchariyon Ki Bharti) Niyam, 1979 (M P.) – R. 5 (2) and 8 (2) – services of teacher terminated for whatever reason – his name should be recorded in register as provided in R.5 (2) – his right of further employment must be protected in accordance with R. 8 (2).

        Short Note

       1. Reliance is placed on the Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ki Bharti) Niyam, 1979 for short "Bharti Niyam, 1979". Our attention is drawn to rule 5 as also to rule 8 of those rules. As per Rule 5 (1), the Institution in which any "teacher" or "employee" was serving after the enactment of the Act and Rules aforesaid, is saddled with the duty of intimating, among others, to the Ayog in Form I, as and when services of a “teacher” or an “employee” is terminated "for any reason whatsoever". In the instant case, admittedly, it is submitted, respondent No.4 had performed its duty in that regal d and made the requisite intimation to the Ayog when the petitioner lost his job on the term of the Fellowship having ended.

       2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.1, the Ayog, defaulted in its duty in recording in the Register which the Ayog was required to maintain in Form II upon receipt of information as per rule 5 (1) of the said Bharti Niyam, 1979. As a result, the petitioner has suffered a serious deprivation in the matter of protection of his right to further employment envisaged under rule 8 of the said Niyam. Under rule 8, it is provided that as and when vacancy occurs in any post of a teacher or other employees, a requisition in Form III was to be made, among others, to the Ayog, indeed with the object of providing that erstwhile teachers and employees are duly deserve to be protected in respect of their right to future employment as and when, for any reason whatsoever, their services are terminated. In sub – rule (2) of rule 8, guidelines are provided for the Ayog to refer cases of such person, to prospective employing institutions. We have no doubt that the provisions carry in them a constitutional compulsion based on Article 16 of the Constitution and default of the said provisions is bound to render defaulter answerable for that.

       3. It is not denied that in the instant case, there is a default on the part of the Ayog, namely, respondent No.1, in entering the name of the petitioner in Form No. If and as a result thereof the petitioner has been deprived of the opportunity of being provided employment in any other institution of the State on a vacancy in the post of Lecturer in Sociology occurring therein subsequent to his termination of services by respondent No.2. We are of the view, therefore, that a direction is pre – eminently warranted against respondent No.1 and that is accordingly made. We direct that petitioner's name be inserted at the proper place in the Register that is required to be maintained in Form II as per rule 5 (2). We direct also that the said Ayog shall furnish information about that to the institutions governed by the Adhiniyam aforesaid so that if there be any vacancy in any of the institutions in the post of Lecturer in Sociology, the necessary steps for filling up that vacancy may be taken keeping in view the claim of the petitioner as contemplated under the Adhiniyam and Bharti Niyam, aforesaid. Petition disposed of.