AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.—Petitioner has sought for setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in EAT 47/2001 on 23.10.2006 - anenxure A and to reinstate the Petitioner as a full time teacher of Urdu and Social Science in the Respondent institution.
Counsel repondenting the 1st and 2nd Respondents has filed a memo of retirement on 15.9.2011 after notice to these Respondents.
According to the Petitioner, she was selected as a full time teacher in the regular selection held during January 1991 and allotted work on regular basis. The appointment was against a sanctioned post and her appointment was confirmed with effect from 22.6.1992. As such, she worked up to October 2000 continuously and thereafter, it is alleged, on 30.10.2001 she was removed from service without holding inquiry despite she having a degree in MA (Sociology), and (Urdu) and B. Ed, qualification. She filed an appeal before the Education Appellate Tribunal in No. 47/2001. However, the Tribunal held the termination is valid. Hence, this petition on various grounds.
According to the Petitioner''s counsel, the Respondent institution is an aided institution. In stead of granting post to the Petitioner who is a better qualified, it was given to a person less qualified and a junior to the Petitioner, Accordingly, she has sought for quashing the order passed by the Tribunal and for a direction to reinstate her as a full time teacher on par with other teachers, for back wages and other benefits.
Heard the Petitioner''s counsel and the Government Pleader.
It is the submission of the Petitioner''s counsel, the Tribunal after considering the factual aspect, only on the ground that she applied for Head Mistress post although there was no bar for the same and, also on the ground that she is working in some other school, confirmed the order of the dismissal/removal. It is also submitted, the management in stead of recommending her name for extension of grant-in-aid, deliberately suppressed the fact and ordered for removal without holding inquiry.
Government Pleader submitted, if the appointment of the Petitioner by the management is against a sanctioned post and if it is in accordance with law and if there is any recommendation to extend grant in aid, the government would have considered her case according to law.
Regarding merits of the case, there is no one to represent the Management. Although notice has been served by the counsel appearing for the Management before filing the retirement memo, none represent the Respondents.
Though this Court is not supposed to look into fact finding, whether any illegality or non-compliance of principles of natural justice has crept in could be looked into. What has been argued by the Petitioner''s counsel is, she has been illegally removed from 30.10.2001 and no show cause notice was issued nor any inquiry was held.
According to the Respondent Institution, as contended before the Tribunal, the Appellant''s service has been terminated with effect from 1.4.2000 and not from 30.10.2001. On going through the order of the Tribunal, it is seen the services of the Petitioner was terminated on the ground that she applied for the post of Head Mistress. Throughout the contention of the Respondents is Petitioner was a temporary teacher and was not a permanent teacher and also there are several mis conducts.
However, the fact remains, there was no full fledged inquiry before ''terminating the Petitioner''s service. More over, as per the contention of the Petitioner, she was a permanent teacher. Ex. P2 is the letter of appointment issued with depicts her appointment is permanent in nature. In the circumstances, when the Management has disputed the aspect of the Petitioner being a permanent teacher and also on the ground of misconduct of applying for the post of Head Mistress and that she was teaching in some other school on part time or temporary basis, the Appellate Tribunal despite looking into Ex. P2 and some other documents produced depicting the fact that Petitioner is a permanent employee, proceeded to form an opinion that Petitioner failed to prove that she is a permanent employee without even considering the fact that Management has not held any inquiry much less her dismissal/removal was without alleging that she was a probationer or without making any allegation. If such allegations are made, the condition precedent is, an inquiry ought to have been held to hold that charges made against her are proved. Simply having recorded evidence, the Tribunal proceeded to hold that the Petitioner failed to establish her case which appears to be on a wrong footing and without insisting upon the basic necessity of compliance of principles of natural justice.
In the circumstances, impugned order passed by the EAT is set aside. It is for the Respondents/Management to reinstate the Petitioner with 50% back wage and to consider recommending her case for grant-in-aid. However, if the Management still insists to stand by its contention, it can do so only after following the procedure as contemplated in law. Amount by way of 50% back wages be paid to the Petitioner by the 1st and 2nd Respondents / Management within three months. Petitioner be taken on duty forthwith
Petition is allowed.