Mohan Lal Vohra vs State of Haryana and Another

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order of his premature retirement. He was born on August 5, 1933. He joined service as a Master on November 23, 1959. He was promoted as a Lecturer in the year 1964 and thereafter as Headmaster in November, 1970. On September 30, 1988, he was served with three months'' notice of retirement at the age of 55 years. Aggrieved by this order, he submitted a representation to the Director of School Education. It is averred that without deciding his representation, the Petitioner was relieved of his duties on December 29, 1988. Consequently this petition.

It has been averred in the petition that during his entire tenure the Petitioner had been granted all promotions on the due date/s. During his tenure of about 18 years as Headmaster, there was not even a single complaint against him. He was allowed to cross the efficiency bar in time. Inspite of these facts, he has been arbitrarily retired from service.

A written statement has been filed on behalf of the Respondents. In the written statement, the summary of the Petitioner''s record of service has been produced. This reads as under:

s. No. Year Grading Results Overall Grading

1977-78 B Two Minus One Plus. Below overage.

1978-79 +B Two Plus Two minus. Good

1979-80 +B Three Plus One minus. Good

1980-81 +B Two Minus . One Plus. Average

1981-82 +B Three Minus One Plus. Below average

1982-83 +B All Minus Below average

1983-84 +B All Minus Below average

1984-85 A All Minus Very good

1985-86 A All Plus Very good

1986-87 A Two Plus One minus. Very good

A perusal of the above would show that the Petitioner had been graded as ''B'' for the year 1977-78. He had been graded as +B for the period from 1978-79 to 1983-84. He had been graded as ''A'' for the period from 1984-85 to 1986-87. His overall grading has been brought down in view of the results of the School. Consequently, his overall grading was reduced to ''below average'' for 1977-78 and 1981-82 to 1983-84. He has been given grading of ''good'' in 1978-79 and 1979-80. Further his performance has been graded as ''very Good'' for the years from 1984-85 to 1986-87. In the written statement it has been further mentioned that the Petitioner had been conveyed an adverse report for the year 1978-79 to the following effect:

Need to improve personal and general remarks.

It has also been averred that the Petitioner''s representation had been examined and rejected.

Mr. Shish Pal Laler, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has raised a two-fold contention. He submits that the action of the Respondents in reducing the overall grading of the Petitioner on the basis of results of the school is wholly arbitrary. He has further submitted that even on the basis of his record of service, the Petitioner cannot be described as ''dead wood'' and as such the order of premature retirement was wholly arbitrary and unfair.

On an examination of the summary sheet of the Petitioner''s record of service, as produced by the Respondents, I find that his performance was found in the range from ''good'' to ''very good''. It was down graded only on the basis of the results of the school. It has not been averred or shown from record that the Petitioner was informed about the down grading of his reports. Further, I am also of the view that once the Petitioner''s performance was assessed as ''good'' or ''very good'', it cannot be down graded merely on the basis of the results. The overall results of a school depend hot only on the performance of the other teachers, but also on the calibre of the students. Surely, a teacher alone much less a headmaster cannot be made to suffer even if the results of the school are not upto the expected standards. On an overall consideration of the matter. I am of the view that the Petitioner cannot be described as ''dead wood'' which may need to be chopped off.

Accordingly, I accept this writ petition and quash the impugned order. The Petitioner shall be deemed to have continued in service and shall be entitled to all consequential reliefs that may ensue. Since the Petitioner has already crossed the age of 58 years in August 1991, no order of reinstatement can be passed. The Petitioner shall also be entitled to his costs, which are assessed at Rs. 2,000.