AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hemant Gupta, J.—The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 03-01-2008 (Annexure P-18) wherein the Management of the petitioner-School was dissolved with immediate effect and Sh. Harbir Singh Anand, Lecturer in Commerce was appointed as Principal/Manager/Receiver of the School u/s 4 of Punjab Aided School (Security of Service) Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') as applicable to the Union Territory, Chandigarh.
The brief facts which led to the passing of the aforesaid order is that one Jaswant Singh was discharging the duties of the Principal of the School. The said school is receiving 95% grant-in-aid from Chandigarh Administration. The School has a Managing Committee consisting of 16 members. Such Managing Committee is approved by the Education Department on yearly basis in terms of the provisions of Education code under which the petitioner is receiving grant on Delhi pattern.
Mr. Jaswant Singh was to retire on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years on 31-08-2006. He was awarded a State award for his service to the Cause of Education. As a State awardee, Mr. Jaswant Singh claimed extension for one year i.e. upto 31-08-2007. Since there was no response to the claim of the extension of service as a State Awardee, Mr. Jaswant Singh filed a CWP No. 13541 of 2006 before this Court. On 29-08-2006, the Division Bench of this Court passed an order that the petitioner will not be relieved from his duties till the next date. It was on 07-09-2007, such interim order was vacated when it was noticed that the petitioner has since completed his period of re-employment as a State Awardee as well. Subsequently, on 13-11-2007, the writ petition was dismissed having rendered infructuous but with a direction that the petitioner shall hand over the charge immediately if not handed over so far.
As a consequence of the order passed by this Court on 07-09-2007, an order was passed by the Managing Committee on 17-09-2007 reliving Mr. Jaswant Singh as Principal from 07-09-2007 but on 18-09-2007, Mr. Jaswant Singh was re-employed on contract basis from 10-09-2007 till the appointment of a regular Principal. The letter dated 18-09-2007 (Annexure P7) further stipulated that Mr. Jaswant Singh would be paid salary by the Management out of its own resources.
Thereafter, some correspondence was exchanged between DPI (School) and the petitioner in respect of reliving of Mr. Jaswant Singh from his duties. It was the case of the respondents that Mr. Jaswant Singh cannot be kept in services in any capacity. In view of the said stand, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 12-11-2007 (Annexure P16) as to why the official receiver may not be appointed by dissolving the Managing Committee with immediate effect as the petitioner has appointed Mr. Jaswant Singh on contract basis in contravention of the directions of this Court. A detailed reply was submitted by the petitioner and it was pointed out one Anup Singh, third senior most teacher has been appointed as temporary Headmaster. It was also pointed out that Mrs. Inderjit Kaur and Mrs. Tarsem Kaur, senior to Mr. Anup Singh have not been considered eligible as departmental enquiries against them are pending. An order has been passed by the DPI (School) on 03-01-2008 appointing Mr. Harbir Singh Anand, Lecturer in Commerce as the Principal/Manager/Receiver of this School. The said order is challenged in the present writ petition.
Though the petitioner has submitted the detailed reply to the show cause notice but the order Annexure P18 is totally non-speaking and cryptic order. It does not show that any of the assertions in the reply was considered and found to be unsatisfactory. Apart from the said fact, we have gone through the respective contentions of the parties at some length and find that action of the respondents in dissolving the Managing Committee of the School and appointing an outsider as the Receiver of the School is wholly arbitrary, unjust and fact takes over the management of the school in a most blatant manner.
Primarily the stand of the respondent is that directions of this Court have been violated when Jaswant Singh has been appointed on contract basis. However, there is no order of this Court, which is to the effect that Jaswant Singh shall not be appointed in any capacity whatsoever. The only order which was referred is dated 13-11-2007. The said is to the effect that if the petitioner (Jaswant Singh) has not handed over the charge, he shall hand over the charge immediately. The controversy in the aforesaid case was limited to the extension of service of a State Awardee. The said order cannot be construed as an order restraining the Management Committee to appoint Jaswant Singh in any manner.
Still further the fact remains that in pursuance of the show cause notice, the Management has appointed Mr. Anup Singh, third senior most from the teaching faculty as the officiating Principal. The reasons given that two senior most members of the teaching faculty are facing departmental enquiry and also have adverse remarks in their Annual Confidential Reports, prima facie cannot be said to be so arbitrary so as to permit the respondents to dissolve the Managing Committee and appoint a receiver of a running School.
Still further, the order of dissolving the Managing Committee has been passed u/s 4 of the Act. The said Act provides security of services to the teachers employed by an aided School. Section 4 of the Act contemplates that in the event of violation of the provisions of this Act or any Rules made thereunder, the Director has the power to stop, reduce or suspend the aid of any aided School. However, learned Counsel for the respondents could not refer to any violation of any of the provisions of aforesaid Act or the Rules made thereunder. The violations of the provisions of the Act alone could authorize the Director to take action and to stop, reduce or suspend aid. Therefore, the stand of the respondents that the power to dissolve the Managing Committee emanates from Section 4 of the Act cannot be sustained.
In the short written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, the respondents have relied upon Chapter III Article 62 of the Education Code. Relying upon the said provision, it is pointed out that it is mandatory that the Managing Committee of a School on grant-in-aid list has to be a registered body and approved by the Department. Since, the petitioner has sought the approval of the Managing Committee, therefore, the power to approve shall also include power to withdraw the approval. Therefore, the respondents has a right to withdraw the approval in terms of the provisions of the Education Code. However, we do not find any merit in the said stand of the respondents as well.
Mr. Jaswant Singh was relived as Principal of the School on 17-09-2007. Though he was re-employed on contract basis out of the funds of the petitioner still he was relieved from all responsibilities on 15-11-2003. Thus at best, Mr. Jaswant Singh worked for a period of 2 months and that too not on the funds provided by the State Government. If the Management has appointed a person not on the funds of the State Government, the only cause of concern can be if not appointed a Principal on regular basis. The default is not such which could warrant appointment of a receiver of a School. Consequently, the action of the respondents in dissolving the Managing Committee for such inaction, which can be termed as irregularity alone, is wholly unjustified and cannot be sustained in law.
In view of the above, we allow the writ petition as prayed for and set aside the order dated Annexure P18. Since the charge of the School has been given to an officiating Principal, it is desirable that the petitioner completes the process of appointment of a regular Principal within a period of 3 months from today.