Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 788 (MP)

S. K. Malviya v. State of M. P.

2001-10-31

A.K.MISHRA

body2001
ORDER 1. A common question arises in the three writ petitions, i.e., WP 3762/2001, WP 6533/2000 and WP 7005/2000, therefore, they are being decided by this common order. 2. Petitioners in all the three petitions, except Smt. R. Khatri in WP 7005/2000 who is Lab Attendant, are Lower Divisional Teachers in ESS Higher Secondary School, Khamaria run by Ordnance Factory, Khamaria. The institution is receiving grant-in-aid and the conditions of service are governed by Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan Samstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ke Vetano Ka Sandaya) Adhiniyam, 1978, renamed as the Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan Samstha Anudan Ka Pradaya Adhiniyam and rules framed thereunder. 3. Services of the petitioners were terminated as per the notice dated 15th September, 2000 on the ground that the school was receiving hundred per cent aid for running the school and for payment of salary, to the teachers, and the State Government decided to cut 20 per cent grant-in-aid w.e.f. 1.4.2000. Thus there was short fall of 20 per cent of salary to the teachers/staff. The society was not able to take the burden of payment owing to less number of students in the school, hence three months notice was issued to remove the petitioners from service. 4. Petitioners challenge orders of their termination being violative of section 6 of the Adhiniyam. Since they were approved employees for the purposes of grant-in-aid, hence their services could be dispensed with only after approval of the competent authority which was not taken in the instant case. Section 6(a)(iii) of the Adhiniyam reads as under: "No teacher or other employee shall be dismissed or removed from service or his services terminated except by an order passed after following such procedure as may be prescribed: Provided that a teacher or other employee may prefer an appeal against his dismissal, removal or termination from service to an appellate authority as the State Government may, by notification, specify within. thirty days from the date of receipt of the order by him and such authority may, after holding such enquiry as it may deem fit in the manner prescribed, may either set aside or confirm or modify the said order and pending the disposal of appeal, the appellate authority may also stay the operation of order on such grounds as it thinks fit." 5. It is apparent from the bare reading of the aforesaid quoted provision that no teacher or other employee shall be dismissed or removed from service or his services terminated except by an order passed after following such procedure as may be prescribed. 6. Under the said Act, rules M.P. Ashaskiya Shikshan Samstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ko Padchyut Karne/Sewa Se Hatane Sambandhi Prakriya) Niyam, 1983 are framed. Rule 12 (3) of the said Rules reads as under : "12(3)(a) The management shall, after considering the representation, if any, made by the teacher or other employee, determine what action, if any should be taken against the teacher or other employee and make a proposal for the order which it intends to pass. (b) The management shall thereupon forward the whole case along with its proposal of the order intended to be passed to the competent authority for its approval and the competent authority shall not refuse to grant such approval except on one or more of the following grounds; (i) that there has not been, in the course of enquiry, proper or sufficient compliance of the procedure laid down in these rules, (ii) that the provisions of the Act are likely to be defeated by the said order; and (iii) that the said order, on the face of it, is perverse." 7. Rule 12(3) (b) of the said Rules requires approval of the competent authority if an employee is required to be removed. The safeguard provided under the rule should be applied equally to removal of all approved teachers whether they are removed after enquiry or without conducting enquiry. A Division Bench of this Court in Bhartiya Vidya Mandir v. Smt. Pushpa Agarwal [ 1993 (II) MPWN 37 ] held that services without the approval of the competent authority, cannot be terminated. 8. Mr. R. Menon very fairly concedes that approval of the competent authority was not obtained. In view of the fact that approval of the competent authority has not been obtained before passing the impugned order of termination dated 15.9.2000, the impugned orders are quashed. 9. It is stated that Ordnance Factory Employees' Education Society has taken over the management and is running the school in question and it has also decided not to terminate the services of the petitioners and it has decided to continue them in service for the time being. 9. It is stated that Ordnance Factory Employees' Education Society has taken over the management and is running the school in question and it has also decided not to terminate the services of the petitioners and it has decided to continue them in service for the time being. In view of this subsequent development also, the impugned orders of termination are bad in law. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, petitions are allowed. Impugned orders of termination dated 15.9.2000 are quashed. Cost on parties.