Gopal Vidya Mandir High School vs The State of Haryana and Others

G.C. Garg, J.—Petitioner- a private non aided but recognised school has in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenged the order Annexure P-4 passed by the District Education Officer, Jind (for short called as D.E.O.) whereby the order of the Managing Committee of the school terminating services of Ramesh. Kumar and Rajesh Kumar respondents 3 and 4, was set aside in exercise of his power under Rule 4(2) of Appendix 27 of the Haryana Education Code (for short called as Code).

Respondents 3 and 4 were employed as teachers, by the petitioner school in the year 1987 and their services were terminated on April 4, 1990 as no longer required and after payment of advance salary of one month in letters of letters of their appointment. They felt aggrieved and approached D.E O. Jind-respondent No. 2, who, as noticed above passed the impugned order Annexure P-4 setting aside the order of termination.

Respondent No. 2 in its written statement did not dispute that the petitioner is not an aided school but relied that it was bound to follow the Rules and Regulations as laid down in the Code as applicable to the recognised schools. Further, reliance was placed on rule 4 of Appendix 27 of the Code. For facility of reference, rule 4 is reproduced as under :-

"4(1) The agreement may be .terminated by a teacher by surrendering three months'' basic salary or salary for a period less than three months as specified in the agreement referred to in clause I above.

(2) Subject to the prior approval of the District Education Officer of the District in which the school is situated the management of the school may terminate the services of a teacher by giving him a notice for a period of three months or for a period less than three months as specified in the agreement referred to in clause I above or by paying basic salary for the notice period, for any one or more of the following reasons :-

XX XX XX XX "

Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the D.E.O. had no jurisdiction to set aside orders Annexures P-2 and P-3 terminating the services of respondents 3 and 4 in terms of letters of their appointments. He went on to contend that the order Annexure P-4 is wholly without jurisdiction and under no provision of law including the Code, respondent No. 2 has jurisdiction to pass an order of the type which has been passed in this case. Respondents 3 and 4 were temporary employees of a privately managed school not receiving Government aid and their services could be terminated as per letters of their appointments and they had no cause to challenge the action of the management before the D.E.O. It was a simple discharge by the management without any stigma. Mr. Yadav, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana appearing for respondent No. 2 contended that recognition was granted to the petitioner-school on the condition that it will accept all the conditions especially those contained in Appendix 27 of the Code and rule 4(2) of the said Appendix reproduced above clearly authorised the D.E.O. to set aside the order passed by the petitioner terminating services of respondents 3 and 4 as prior approval of D.E.O, of the district had not been obtained. Mr. R. K. Gupta learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 re-iterated the same argument and submitted that the D.E.O. passed the order in exercise of his power under rule 4(2) of Appendix 27 and the petitioner- school is bound to comply with the order, Annexure P-4 and take respondents 3 and 4 back into service.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this writ petition deserves to succeed. Rule 4, as reproduced above only provides that the management of a recognised school can terminate the services of a teacher after seeking prior approval of the D. E. O. of the district. This rule or any other rule nowhere provides as to what would happen when the services of a teacher are terminated simplicitor by the management of a privately managed school. This rule in my view, in no way confers jurisdiction on the D.E.O. of the district to set aside an order of termination passed by the management.; A teacher whose services have been terminated illegally or otherwise, may have a right elsewhere but not before the D.E.O. The D.E.O. is neither a disciplinary authority nor an appellate authority for the actions of the managing committee of a privately managed recognised school in any manner. This authority may have the jurisdiction to take action against the management for de-recognition of the school but certainly has no jurisdiction to set aside the orders passed by the managing committee. Order Annexure P-4, in my view, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be allowed to sustain, which I do hereby quash.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Order Annexure P-4 is set aside. In the circumstances of the case, there will, however, be no order as to costs.