Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 15 (JHR)

Mahejabeen v. State Of Bihar

2004-01-06

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2004
JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. In the present writ application, the petitioner who was a teacher in Lakshmi Muslim Girls Middle School, Hazaribagh, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 04.07.1992 passed by the Secretary of the said School (Annexure-8) whereby she was suspended with effect from 07.07.1992. It has also been prayed for quashing of the Resolution dated 27.11.1992 of the Managing Committee of the said School whereby the services of the petitioner was terminated as contained in Annexure-14 to the writ application. The further prayer is for a direction to the Managing Committee to comply with the direction of the District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh dated 05.12,1992, whereby the suspension and termination of the petitioner was declared to be illegal. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he being an LA. Trained was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the year 1983 by the Managing Committee of the Lakshmi Muslim Girls Middle School, Hazaribagh which was a religious minority school as declared by the Government of Bihar by its letter dated 27.02.1980 contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application, which receives aid from the State Government for payment of salary to its employees. The petitioner was appointed on regular basis on 23.10.1985. It is stated that on the retirement of Head Mistress, she applied for the said post as she had enhanced her qualification by obtaining M.A. Degree and was eligible for the said post, but Just after two days of her filing the said application, she received a letter dated 04.05.1992, by which she was served with a charge-sheet and was directed to file show cause as to why her services be not terminated. The petitioner filed her show cause, denying the charges but without holding any enquiry and without examining any witness in support of the charges, the Secretary of the School by letter dated 28.05.1992, informed her that the Managing Committee tentatively decided to terminate her services and she was asked to show cause against the proposed punishment. The petitioner requested the Secretary to furnish the copies of the relevant documents in support of the charges and permit her to take the assistance of a Lawyer on the ground that the Secretary of the School as well as the member of the Enquiry Committee were lawyers. The petitioner was subsequently suspended by issue of letter dated 04.07.1992 contained in Annexure-8. 3. The petitioner was subsequently suspended by issue of letter dated 04.07.1992 contained in Annexure-8. 3. Thereafter the petitioner was also served with supplementary charges by letter dated 15.07.1992 to which she filed her show cause and then a second supplementary charge sheet was also served on 31.10.1992, which was also replied by her. Ultimately, the petitioner was served with a copy of Resolution of the meeting of the Management Committee dated 07.11.1992 whereby a decision was taken to terminate the services of the petitioner as contained in Annexure-14 to the writ application. 4. It is further stated that the District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh found the order of suspension of the petitioner as well as the termination to services to be arbitrary and illegal and, therefore, the Secretary of the School was directed by the District Superintendent of Education to reinstate her In service. Pursuant to that, the petitioner went to submit her joining report but the same was not accepted. 5. It has been submitted on behalf of the. petitioner that the issuance of order as contained in Annexure-8 as well as An-nexure-14 to the writ application that is the order of suspension and the order of termination are illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A.R. Sarangi submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was made with the approval of the State Government and, therefore, her services could not have been terminated by the Secretary of the School without prior approval of the State Government. In this connection he has relied on the Notification No. 2501 dated 31.12.1982. He further submitted that since the Enquiry Report was not supplied to the Enquiry Officer and, therefore, on the basis of the said enquiry report, the order of termination could not have been passed and, as such, the same is absolutely bad in law. On this point he has relied on a decision in the case of Managing Director E.C.I.L., Hyderabad v. D. Karunakar, reported in 1994 LIC 762. It was further submitted that the order of termination is wrong on the ground that the School in question has not framed as yet any Service Rule for the teachers which is a must. It was lastly submitted that the punishment awarded against the petitioner was wholly dis-proportionate to the charges and it was too harsh. It was further submitted that the order of termination is wrong on the ground that the School in question has not framed as yet any Service Rule for the teachers which is a must. It was lastly submitted that the punishment awarded against the petitioner was wholly dis-proportionate to the charges and it was too harsh. In this connection he has relied on a decision in the case of Debithson D. Sangma v. The State of Meghalaya, reported in 2002 LIC 1366. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Sohail Anwar learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 and 7, namely, the Managing Committee and the Secretary of the School respectively, has vehemently argued that the writ application is not maintainable against these respondents which as Managing Committee of the minority School, which is being run, managed and . maintained by private parties. In support of his submission, he had cited two un-reported judgments of this Court in CWJC No. 1341 of 1994 disposed of on 13.03.1997 and also the judgment dated 10.11.1994 in CWJC No. 85 of 1995 (R). From perusal of the above judgment in the case of Mehmood Alam and Ors. v. State of Blhar, CWJC No. 1341 of 1994 (R), it appears that this Court after considering the fact that the School in question was managed by minority community and, therefore, the writ application was not maintainable against the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the School, In the case of Managing Committee of TELCO Urdu Middle School and Anr. v. The State of Bihar and Ors., in CWJC No. 85 of 1994 (R), this Court by judgment dated 10.11.1994, has held that there is no regulation empowering any authority of the Education Department to interfere with the disciplinary action taken against the teacher of a minority institution and, therefore, the action taken by the Managing Committee of the School cannot be challenged in the writ application. 8. In view of the aforesaid two judgments passed by this Court in CWJC No. 85 of 1994 (R) and 1341 of 1994 (R), I hold that the present writ application against the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are not maintainable and, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. 9. Since this writ application has been held to be not maintainable against respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are not maintainable and, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. 9. Since this writ application has been held to be not maintainable against respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and, therefore, it is not necessary to deal with the other points urged on behalf of the petitioner. 10. In the result, this application is held to be not maintainable and accordingly, this application is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to cost.