AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. N. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Phukan, learned CGC appearing for the respondent under the Sainik School Goalpara as well as Union of India.
By the order dated 26.02.2005 of the Principal of Sainik School, the petitioner was appointed as a Matron on temporary adhoc basis w.e.f. 01.03.2005 on a consolidated pay of Rs. 4,000/- per-month. It is stated that by the subsequent orders, the engagement of the petitioner as a temporary adhoc Matron of the school was continued from time to time but by providing a break of service during the period when the school remained closed due to vacation. The said aspect of following a procedure of break in service due to vacation in a school had already been addressed by the Supreme Court in similar procedures in respect of Kendriya Vidyalaya.
To that extent, the law laid down by the Supreme Court would also govern the petitioner.
In the instant case, the petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 30.05.2015 by which the petitioner was relieved from her engagement as Matron/ward boy w.e.f. 26.05.2015. The reason thereof was stated that the vacancy has been released for being appointed on contractual basis.
In the affidavit-in-opposition, the respondent Sainik School Society, Goalpara takes a stand in paragraph-3 that the Govt. of India in the Ministry of Defence of the Sainik School Society vide letter No.9(3)/2006/D(SSC) dated 15.09.2006 had abolished the post of Hostel Superintendent/Matron and authorized the school to employ individuals on contract basis against the vacancies of Hostel Superintendent/Matron and ward boy.
A copy of the letter dated 15.09.2006 is also annexed as Annexure-J to the said affidavit. The said communication comprises of the guidelines for the authorization of staff in the Sainik School.
Clause 2 (c) of the communication dated 15.09.2006 indicates that a music teacher, band master and art teacher may be appointed on adhoc/contractual/part time basis. The petitioner having been appointed as a Matron, the said provision is of no relevance. It is also provided in Clause 2(c) that the post of Hostel Superintendent and Library Attendant is to be abolished. The provision of the letter dated 15.09.2006 being confined to the abolition of post of Hostel Superintendent and Library Assistant, we find that there is an improvement by the authorities in the Sainik School in their affidavit-in-opposition that instead of remaining confined to the expression Hostel Superintendent, the improvement has been made to understand the letter dated 15.09.2006 to also include a Matron along with the superintendent.
We are unable to accept the same as the letter dated 15.09.2006 confined itself the post of Hostel Superintendent and it does not include a Matron therefore, relevance of the respondent in the Sainik School on the letter dated 15.09.2006 to release the petitioner from engagement as a Matron by the order dated 30.05.2015 is contrary to the reasons given by the authorities both the in order of release as well as in the affidavit.
In view of the above, the order of release dated 30.05.2015 is set aside. However, if the respondent authorities are of the view that they are not required to continue with the post of Matron, they may follow the appropriate procedure of law to deal with the case of the petitioner as may be required, but her release by the order dated 30.05.2015 for the said reason as well under the provision of the letter dated 15.09.2016 are unsustainable.
Writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicted above.
Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.