State of Maharashtra and Others vs Anita

A.M. Badar, J—By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners are challenging the order dated 18.10.2002 passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 466/2002 filed by the respondent herein whereby the impugned order dated 5.9.2002 terminating the services of the respondent herein from the post of Instructor in the Trade of Embroidery and Needle Work was quashed and set aside. The learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal further directed petitioners to treat case of the respondent like other Instructors for continuation on the post of Instructor in the Trade of Dress Making by taking necessary undertaking as had been taken from others.

Facts leading to the institution of the present petition can be summarized thus:

The respondent herein challenged her termination order dated 5.9.2002 issued by the Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Training, thereby terminating her services w.e.f. 7.9.2002 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. According to the respondent she had passed certificate course in Embroidery and Fancy Work in the year 1983 and Tailoring and Cutting in the year 1985. In pursuant to the registration with the Employment Exchange, the respondent herein got interview call from the Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Training for appointment on the post of Instructor in Embroidery and Needle Work. After interviewing the respondent, she was appointed by an order dated 20.12.1996 as Instructor in Embroidery and Needle Work Trade for a period from 23.12.1996 to 21.6.1997. The respondent herein accordingly joined the post of Instructor and continued working in the Industrial Training Institute where she was posted. In the meanwhile, her services were sought to be replaced by appointing another ad hoc employee and this action of the State came to be challenged by her before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. That original application filed by the respondent herein came to be allowed by directing present petitioners not to replace the respondent herein by another ad hoc employee. That is how the respondent continued to serve as Instructor. Subsequently, petitioners had taken a policy decision to regularize the services of ad hoc employees who were appointed by following selection process, such as recruitment through the Employment Exchange or Selection Board. Accordingly on 30.6.1999, an appointment order, appointing the petitioner as Instructor in Trade Embroidery and Needle work on permanent basis came to be issued. In pursuant to the order dated 30.6.1999, the respondent herein continued to serve as permanent employee of petitioners.

Petitioner - State on 3.8.2001 took a policy decision by issuing a Government Resolution thereby deciding to convert unpopular Trades to other popular Trades which were in demand. It was resolved by the State that unpopular Trades conducted in the Industrial Training Institute be converted to other popular Trades, but while doing this exercise, new posts shall not be created and the State will not bear any additional financial burden. By this Government Resolution dated 3.8.2001 the Trade Embroidery and Needle Work at Industrial Training Institute, Chimur was converted into popular Trade of Dress Making. At the relevant time, the respondent herein was working as Instructor in the Industrial Training Institute, Chimur.

It was the case of the respondent herein that she was asked to conduct classes of Dress Making after conversion of the Trade. In the meanwhile, she had also passed the necessary examination and on 6.4.2002 acquired National Trade Certificate in Embroidery and Needle Work. Thereafter, on 5.9.2002, the Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Training issued termination order dated 5.9.2002, thereby terminating the services of the respondent with a reason that the Embroidery and Needle Work Trade in Industrial Training Institute, Chimur is closed. This order came to be impugned by the respondent herein before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application bearing No. 466/2002 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The respondent challenged her termination on the ground that she was a permanent employee of the State Government and by the Government Resolution dated 3.8.2002, the State has only decided to convert unpopular Trades into popular ones. Respondent Anita Chopde further contended that other Instructors who were working on the unpopular Trades which were converted into popular Trades were duly accommodated by the State by protecting their services but the respondent herein was singled out by terminating her services.

The original application came to be opposed by filing suitable reply by petitioners contending that the respondent herein was not qualified for the post of Instructor in Embroidery and Needle Work which is now closed by converting it into Dressing Making in terms of Government Resolution dated 3.8.2001. According to petitioners, the respondent was not qualified to hold the post at the time of her appointment and therefore, she cannot challenge her termination. The State also opposed the application on the ground that post of Instructor in Dress Making requires qualification of holding a certificate in Dress Making from the National Council for Vocational Education and Training or Diploma in Dress Making from the Technical Board of State of Maharashtra.

During the pendency of the proceedings before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, the respondent herein filed counter-affidavit and pointed out the Government Resolution dated 21.6.2002 as well as office order dated 11.9.2002 issued in terms of Government Resolution dated 21.6.2002, thereby directing absorption of Instructors working on unpopular Trades upon conversion into popular Trades.

After hearing the parties, the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by the impugned order dated 18.10.2002 came to the conclusion that the termination of the respondent is illegal and therefore, after quashing the impugned order of termination dated 5.9.2002 petitioners were directed to treat the case of the respondent herein like other Instructors for continuation on the post of Instructor in Trade of Dress Making by obtaining necessary undertaking from her as had been taken from the other Instructors.

We heard Mrs. K.S. Joshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for petitioners - authorities of the State. She vehemently argued that the respondent herein was not duly qualified for the post of Instructor in Embroidery and Needle Work at the time of her initial appointment and as such she was not entitled for continuation on the said post. Mrs. Joshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader further argued that the appointment of the respondent herein was not on permanent basis and her services were only regularized without conferring any permanency on her. She further argued that the respondent herein was not even holding necessary qualification for being absorbed as Instructor in Trade Dress Making. The respondent herein, according to Mrs. Joshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, was not holding the certificate of Dress Making issued by the National Council for Vocational Education and Training or the Diploma issued by the Board of Technical Education of the State. In the alternative, Mrs. Joshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader contended that the respondent herein is not entitled for increments as she was not holding necessary qualification.

Per contra, Mr. Shrikant Deo, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent herein submitted that the impugned order of the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal is perfectly legal. He further contended that the present respondent was singled out by the employer by giving discriminatory treatment. Though other Instructors were absorbed on the parallel Trade the respondent herein was hastily terminated. Mr. Deo, the learned Counsel for the respondent drew our attention to the additional affidavit tendered by the respondent and particularly to the statement of marks at page No. 95 of the record to demonstrate that the respondent herein had acquired the necessary qualification i.e. Diploma in Dress Designing and Manufacturing.

Having heard the learned Counsels appeared for the parties and upon careful perusal of the record, we see no justifiable reason for interfering with the well reasoned order of the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by which the termination order dated 5.9.2002, terminating the services of the respondent herein, was quashed and set aside. It needs to point out here that initial appointment of the respondent herein on the post of Instructor in Trade Embroidery and Needle Work was made after following due process of law and by adhering to the selection process. By interview letter dated 6.11.1996 she was called by the Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Training to appear for interview on 19.11.1996 as her name was recommended by the Employment Exchange for appointment on the post of the Instructor. Accordingly, the respondent herein was appointed vide appointment order dated 20.11.1996 as Instructor in Trade Embroidery and Needle Work, albeit for a period of six months commencing from 21.6.1998. It is seen that her services were continued thereafter in pursuant to the order passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 272/1997 by which her employer - State was restrained from dispensing with her services by appointing another ad hoc employee. While the respondent herein continued to serve as Instructor, the State Government vide its Resolution dated 8.3.1999 had taken a policy decision to regularize the services of employees who were working on temporary basis by relaxing the condition of recruitment through the Regional Subordinate Services Selection Board or Selection Board. Accordingly vide order dated 30.6.1999, services of the respondent herein came to be regularized and she was appointed on permanent basis on Craft Instructor in Trade Embroidery and Needle Work. This order dated 30.6.1999 (record page 34) makes it clear that permanency was conferred on respondent Anita Chopde and she was informed that she will be governed by the Rules as are applicable to the Government servants. The respondent herein was further informed by this order that she will have to clear the departmental examination and she will not be entitled for change of her date of birth recorded in her service record after five years from the date of her appointment. Thus, the respondent herein was duly absorbed in permanent service of the State in pursuant to the policy decision taken by the State. As such, we find no merit in the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the respondent herein was not a permanent Government servant. The respondent herein has placed on record the National Trade Certificate acquired by her on passing the examination held in July, 2002 conducted by the Director of Vocational Education and Training (record page 41). As such, the respondent herein has established that she was fully qualified to hold the post of Instructor in Embroidery and Needle Work on which she was appointed.

Now, let us examine whether the termination of the respondent Anita Chopde on account of closure of Trade Embroidery and Needle Work effected vide order dated 5.9.2002 was legal or otherwise. On this aspect, the Government Resolution dated 3.8.2001 (record page 38) is relevant. By this Government Resolution, petitioner - State had decided to convert unpopular Trades to other parallel Trades which were in demand. This was to be done by closing unpopular Trades and opening classes for Trades in demand. Annexure-A to this Government Resolution dated 3.8.2001 shows that the Trade Embroidery and Needle Work in Industrial Training Institute at Chimur was converted into Trade Dress Making. Accordingly, from June, 2002, the students were admitted in Trade Dress Making of Industrial Training Institute, Chimur. The contention of the respondent herein is to the effect that she was required to take up classes of those students taking education in Trade Dress Making prior to her termination. The termination order dated 5.9.2002 (record page 42) only records the reasons that the services of the respondent are terminated due to closure of Trade Embroidery and Needle Work. It is crystal clear that the Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Training while issuing this termination order was oblivious of the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 21.6.2000 (record page 56) issued by the Higher and Technical Education Department of the petitioner - State. By this Government Resolution the State Government had categorically directed that at the time of conversion of unpopular Trades by closing them and opening popular Trades, Instructors employed on those closing Trades should be absorbed by the Director of Vocational Education and Training. It was further directed by this Government Resolution dated 21.6.2000 that if required then such Instructors should be imparted necessary training in order to enable them to impart instructions for educating the students who had taken admission in newly opened Trades. Thus, after conversion of Trade Embroidery and Needle Work to the Dress Making, it was incumbent on the part of the Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Training to absorb the respondent herein on the post of Instructor in newly opened Trade Dress Making. However, it appears that by totally overlooking the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 21.6.2000, the impugned termination order was issued by the Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Training. The respondent herein as such was singled out by giving discriminatory treatment to her by terminating her services. As such the impugned termination order was contrary to the provisions of Government Resolution dated 21.6.2000 issued by the Higher and Technical Education Department of the State. The same appears to have been issued in utter haste without even caring to seek necessary clarification from the concerned Department. Ousting the Permanent Government Servant by ignoring the policy of absorption smacks mala fide and amounts to colourable exercise of power by the Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Training.

The respondent herein had relied on a letter dated 9.8.2002 (record page 83) issued by the Incharge Director of Vocational Education and Training, Mumbai in pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 21.3.2000. By this letter, the Incharge Director of the Department has prescribed the guidelines implementing the Government Resolution dated 21.6.2000 regarding absorption of the Instructors on parallel Trade and parallel post. The Incharge Director by this letter dated 9.8.2002 in terms instructed the Deputy Directors throughout the State that the Instructors working on unpopular Trades which are being closed should be absorbed on parallel posts. It was further informed that the Instructors not fulfilling the requisite educational qualification should be given one year time for acquiring necessary qualification by obtaining required undertaking from them. Not only this, but it was also directed that by way of stopgap arrangement the Instructors should be given training for a short period of one month so as to enable them to impart instructions to the students admitted in newly opened Trades. It is, thus, clear that as per policy decision of the petitioner - State, all Instructors working on unpopular Trades which were being closed were supposed to be absorbed on parallel posts. Despite these expressed directions as reflected in the communication dated 9.8.2001 issued by the Incharge Director, the Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Training, by the impugned order dated 5.9.2002 ventured to terminate the services of the respondent herein w.e.f. 7.9.2002. The impugned termination order, as such, is in total violation of the policy of the State Government, which the Deputy Director was bound to follow. The action of terminating services of the respondent herein was as such totally arbitrary, unjust and discriminatory and as such hit by the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal was perfectly justified in quashing and setting aside the same. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.

Mrs. Joshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently argued that the respondent herein was not qualified for absorption on the post of Instructor in Trade Dress Making. She drew our attention to the reply filed by the State before the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal wherein it was pointed out that qualification for Instructor in Dress Making is possessing a certificate from the National Council for Vocational Training or Diploma in Dress Making issued by the Board of Technical Education, Maharashtra. As against this, Shri Deo, the learned Counsel for the respondent herein has submitted that the respondent herein was not permitted to undergo the necessary training for the post of Instructor in Dress Making. However, in his submission, the respondent herein had suo motu undertook training and acquired the Diploma in Dress Designing and Manufacturing. He pointed out the statement of marks dated 15.1.2014 placed on record at page No. 95 which shows that the respondent herein has passed Diploma course in Dress Designing and Manufacturing in Winter examination conducted by the Board of Technical Education in the year 2013.

In our considered opinion, by the office order dated 11.9.2002 issued by the Incharge Director, Vocational Education and Training which is placed on record by none else but the respondent herein, the Instructors working on closed Trades were given one year''s time for acquiring educational qualification required for parallel Trade. As such, it was not at all necessary for the respondent herein to have waited for permission of her superior officers for undergoing Diploma course in Dress Making. Now, respondent Anita Chopde is certainly qualified to hold post of Instructor in Dress Making. Therefore, we hope and trust that as the respondent herein has acquired necessary qualification for the post of Instructor in Dress Making by passing Diploma course in the examination held in Summer, 2013, the petitioners will look into consequential issue of releasing increments in her favour as per applicable Rules.

In the light of foregoing discussion, the writ petition fails. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.