AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Per Hon’ble Mr. M.S. Latif, Member (Judl.)
Through the medium of the instant T.A., the applicant seeks the following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ of certiorari, direction or order in the nature of certiorari where the impugned order dated 7-8-2024 passed by respondent No. 3 be declared null and void and quash/set aside accordingly.
b. Issue a writ of Mandamus, direction or order in the nature of mandamus whereby the respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner to complete the contract period as per the engagement order including the period for
which the petitioner was kept out from performing/discharging his duties in the School of Respondent No.3 illegally and arbitrary.
c. Issue a writ of Mandamus, direction or order in the nature of mandamus whereby the respondent No. 3 may be Central Administrative Tribunaldirected to pay salary or compensation for the period for which the petitioner was kept away from discharging/performing his duties as PGT IT Teacher in the respondent School under the garb of the said impugned illegal order.
d. Issue a writ of Mandamus, direction or order in the nature of mandamus whereby the respondents be directed to pay salary of petitioner as Trainer for attending additional classed inside an outside the school as per PMKUY guidelines at the rate of Rs. 2000.0 per candidate total 42 candidates which has been illegally withheld by the respondent No. 3 without any lawful reason and justification.
e. Any other order or direction may be passed which the Hon'ble court may deem fit and appropriate under law.
What emerges from the pleadings made is that the applicant came to be engaged in the school of respondents as GPT IT Teacher at NVS Lolab, Kupwara for the Academic Session of 2024-25, up to 31.03.2025.
The applicant has primarily thrown challenge to an Order passed by the Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Lolab
Kupwara, J&K, dated 07.08.2024, on the grounds as urged in the T.A. The star ground as raised is that before passing the order impugned, the respondents were under a legal obligation to conduct an enquiry and to provide an opportunity of being heard to the applicant, which as stated has not been done in the instant case, and further the second ground as urged by learned counsel for the applicant is that the order impugned being stigmatic and punitive in nature, that too having been passed at the back of the applicant, cannot withstand the test of law.
Reply stands filed in the matter by the respondents, though none is present for the respondents today, despite the case having been notified in the cause list.
Perusal of the reply reveals that the respondents have sought for dismissal of the T.A. on the grounds of its maintainability. It has been averred that the order impugned has been issued lawfully and after due consideration of the conduct of the performance of the concerned official, and the order impugned was necessitated due to non-performance of duties and unethical behaviour, which as stated, is incompatible with the standards
expected in a residential and co-educational institution imparting education up to the senior secondary level. It is further stated that the answering respondents maintain high standards of discipline, integrity, and professional conduct in order to provide a safe and conducive environment for all students and staff, and the behaviour of the employees, particularly a teacher imparting education, has to be par excellence.
It is further averred in the reply that applicant was engaged purely on contractual basis by the respondent no. 3, primarily due to his local availability, with the objective of ensuring better service delivery to the students in a residential school setup. However, the applicant did not conform to the regulations and norms of the institution.
The reply filed by the respondents is silent as to whether any opportunity of being heard was provided to the applicant before issuance of the order impugned.
Perusal of the reliefs claimed by the petitioner herein reveals that the relief no. 2 has been rendered infructuous by afflux of time, as the contract of the applicant, in view of the
statement of the learned counsel for the applicant, has already elapsed, as such does not want to press the relief. However, as regards the quashment of the order passed by the respondents, learned counsel in all fairness submits that the order impugned may be an impediment for the applicant to seek future employment, as certain imputations have been made in the impugned order against the applicant. He submits that the order impugned casts a shadow over the integrity of the applicant as in the order impugned, the mention is, "These actions are in violation of the code of conduct expected from a teacher at NVS and have raised serious concerns regarding your commitment and integrity towards your role. Therefore, your contract is being terminated as part of the disciplinary action".
Admittedly, the applicant while being engaged on the contractual assignment in terms of the order dated 14.06.2024, there were certain terms and conditions, as were mentioned in the order of his engagement, which the applicant was equally bound to adhere to. It is also apt to mention here that maintenance of conduct and the discipline of teacher, particularly in an institution
which is co-ed, is the hallmark and, the Principal, the head of the institution is certainly within his powers to ensure that a congenial atmosphere is maintained in the educational institution and nobody indulges in any such acts of indiscipline and, any such acts of indiscipline of a teacher or otherwise is sure to breed indiscipline in the society, as teachers are the nation builders and what is expected particularly of a teacher is conduct above the board.
Learned counsel for the applicant was confronted as to whether the instant T.A. is maintainable, in view of the fact that a contract of service is not an enforceable right and the only remedy in law would be to seek damages. However, he submits that the instant O.A. is maintainable in the light of the law laid down in the case titled as Feroz Ahmad Sheikh & Ors. v. UT of J&K decided on 16.12.2023 by the Hon'ble High Court of J&K and Ladakh in WP(C) No. 2260/2022 and reference has been made to Para 17, wherein it is observed that in Mangal Singh v. The Chairman, National Research Development Corporation & Ors., 2009 SCC OnLine Delhi 2345, the petitioner was an appointee on contractual basis and his
services were terminated by what he alleged was a punitive and stigmatic order, without conducting any departmental enquiry. Their lordships held that the termination order was not a discharge simplicitor but stigmatic and punitive in character and the misconduct being the foundation of the order of termination, their lordships held that before passing the order, the respondents could have not dispensed with providing an opportunity of being heard. Reference has also been made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled as U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Brijesh Kumar & Anr. arising out of SWP No. 10546 of 2019 wherein their lordships have held that where no show cause notice has been given and where there is a violation of principles of natural justice, the action cannot withstand the test of law.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the contents of the O.A. and the reply filed by the respondents, coupled with the case law cited at Bar.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the T.A. only survives for the relief whereby the respondents be directed to
expunge the words used in the order impugned, which are detrimental to his future service prospects, wherein the words used, "integrity of the role, unethical behaviour", be expunged. As regards the relief claimed by the applicant for allowing him to continue his tenure, in terms of his order of engagement, the same having been rendered infructuous by efflux of time, and does not need any order, as the same has been rendered infructuous. As regards the payment of salary, the applicant must have received his legitimate outstanding dues till he was in the contractual engagement of the respondents.
The instant O.A. is disposed of by providing that the applicant shall move a detailed representation before the competent authority/Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Lolab Kupwara, J&K, along with all the law cited, who shall consider expunging the words used in the order impugned wherein it has been mentioned as regards the ‘unethical behaviour’ and the reference as regards ‘the integrity of the applicant towards his role as a teacher’. The needful shall be done within a period of four weeks positively by passing a speaking order in the light of the law
as quoted above.
Registry of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Lolab Kupwara, J&K.
Accordingly, T.A. No. 67/2025 is disposed of along with all connected M.A.s, if any.