Church Of Christ Mission In India Education Department vs V. Walter

Heard Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Aman Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondents No.2 and 3/State.

The appellants have filed this writ appeal against the order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 7039 of 2009 by which the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein.

Brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 was initially appointed on 30.06.1986 as Lower Division Teacher by the order issued by respondent No.2 on temporary basis and posted at Church of Christ Primary School, Kududand, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). It is pertinent to mention that the appointment of respondent No.1 was on temporary basis and till the date of the termination of service of respondent No.1, she was never regularized. It is the respectful submission of the appellants that the Secretary of TEAMS vide letter dated 08.08.2008 requested that there is scarcity of teachers in the school run by the TEAMS, therefore, experienced teachers should be sent from the Church of Christ Primary School. Right from beginning, work of respondent No.1 was full of sincerity, honesty and without there being any complaint or any adverse remarks, whatsoever, giving maximum results to the Governing Body/Management of C.C.M.I. Thus, the name of respondent No.1 was suggested to be transferred in the school run and control by TEAM and vide order dated 19.08.2008 respondent No.1 was transferred from Primary School Kududand, Bilaspur to Mission Primary School, Manohar Nagar, P.O. Chando, District-Sarguja. In compliance of the said transfer order, respondent No.1 was relieved from the Primary School Kududand, Bilaspur on 20.08.2008. However, she has not complied with the transfer order and did not join at the transferred place. The appellants thus issued a letter dated 16.12.2008 and it was directed to respondent No.1 to join the duty in Mission Primary School, Manohar Nagar, within four days from the receipt of notice, otherwise service of respondent No.1 with the Church of Christ Mission in India shall stand terminated as on 20.08.2008. Respondent No.1 has challenged the transfer order dated 16.12.2008 (wrongly mentioned as 19.12.2008) before this Court in WPS No.5350 of 2008, wherein this Court has not granted any interim relief to her. Subsequently, learned Single Judge vide its order dated 19.11.2018 disposed of WPS No. 5350 of 2008 with the following observation-

“2. Perusal of the record appears that the petitioner’s services subsequently have been terminated. Even otherwise, the petitioner as on date has crossed the age of superannuation. Moreover, the appellant did not have an interim protection against the operation of the transfer order dated 19.08.2008.

Under the said circumstances, the present writ appeal challenging the order of transfer becomes infructuous by efflux of time and the writ petition accordingly stands dismissed as having become infructuous. However, the records of the writ petition shall be kept along with the records of the WPS No. 7039/2009, which is a petition preferred by the petitioner challenging the subsequent termination from service.”

Respondent No.1 did not comply with the letter dated 16.08.2008 and her services were terminated on 20.08.2008. Respondent No.1 challenged the letter dated 16.08.2008 in writ petition being WPS No. 7039 of 2009 claiming that transfer order was arbitrary and illegal.

The learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 19.12.2023 allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein and set-aside the impugned order dated 16.12.2008 (Annexure P/1) with all consequential benefits. Hence, this writ appeal.

Mr.Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Single Judge has failed to see that as per the appointment order of respondent No.1, she is a contractual employee and respondent No.1 with an open eye has signed the contract on 01.07.1986. This aspect has not been decided by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration clause 10 of the Contract dated 01.07.1986 executed between respondent No.1 and the appellants herein. He further submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to see that respondent No.1 is a temporary employee and therefore, no vested right has been accrued in her favour. The learned Single Judge has further failed to see that no interim protection has been granted by this Court in WPS No. 5350 of 2008 in which respondent No.1 has challenged the transfer order dated 19.18.2008 yet respondent No.1 in most arbitrary manner flouted the transfer order dated 19.08.2008. The learned Single Judge has failed to see that the conduct of respondent No.1 comes within the preview of misconduct of non-compliance and disobeying the order passed by the employer i.e. the appellants. He also submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to see that the provisions of the M.P./C.G. Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ke Nilamban) Niyam, 1978 and The M.P. Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ko Padachyut Karne/Sewa Se Hatane Sambandhi Prakriya) Niyam, 1983 is not applicable in the case of respondent No.1 and is perverse as respondent No.1 is not a regular employee. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.

On the other hand, Mr.Ashish Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Aman Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 supports the impugned order and submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 herein, in which no interference is called for.

We have perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal.

From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that as per government circular dated 12.07.1984 for transfer of a staff of the non-governmental aided school, prior sanction of Superintendent of Divisional Education/District Education Officer is required. The appellants did not obtain any approval or sanction from the Superintendent of Divisional Education/District Education Officer which is required as per circular, therefore, the transfer order and termination order both are not in accordance with law.

The learned Single Judge has held that respondents No.3 and 4 therein had not obtained any prior approval or sanction from the Superintendent of Divisional Education/District Education Officer, thus, the transfer order is against the government circular. Learned Single Judge has also held that respondents No.3 and 4 therein have not acted as per the circular and passed the transfer order (Annexure P/4) without any approval of Superintendent of Divisional Education/District Education Officer and set aside the impugned order dated 16.12.2008 with all consequential benefits.

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the pleadings made in this writ appeal, also perusing the documents annexed with writ petition and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by writ petitioner/respondent No.1, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.

Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).