Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 653 (RAJ)

Ruby Khan v. Air Force School

2008-03-01

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. 1. By way of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed that the impugned order dated 11.4.2002 passed by the learned Tribunal as well as order dated 1.3.2000 be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside and she be treated as continuous in the service of the respondent school with all consequential benefits arising out of quashing of the order dated 1.3.2000. She further prayed for any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in favour of the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner she preferred an appeal under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal Act, 1989 (for short as the 'Act of 1989') regarding an order passed by the respondent school by which her services came to an end without following the provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 1989. According to the petitioner, she was appointed after the due selection held on 5.11.1997 and thereafter she had successfully completed her probationary period. She further stated that order dated 1.3.2000 was not served to her on 1st of March itself but was served on 14.3.2000. She further stated that her performance was good and any allegation to that effect is wholly erroneous and incorrect. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents stated that performance of the petitioner was not satisfactory during her probation period. 4. The Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (respondent No.2) after hearing the matter finally had decided the same vide its judgment on 11.4.2000 in favour of respondent No.l. The said order was challenged by way of this writ petition by the petitioner. 5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Tribunal grossly erred in holding that the termination of petitioner is justified even if she had completed two years maximum probationary period and even thereafter yet in the absence of an order of confirmation if the services of the petitioner is terminated the same should be held justified. 6. It is also contended that the Section 18 of the Act of 1989 has no application in the present matter despite the fact that the petitioner had continuously worked for more than two years and there was no letter issued to her to the effect that her services are not found to be satisfactory. 7. 6. It is also contended that the Section 18 of the Act of 1989 has no application in the present matter despite the fact that the petitioner had continuously worked for more than two years and there was no letter issued to her to the effect that her services are not found to be satisfactory. 7. It is also contended that the respondent had failed to submit any document to that effect, rather the petitioner had submitted the orders by which her services were extended and those orders does not contain any such allegation against the petitioner. 8. It is also contended that the termination of the petitioner on account of unsatisfactory services were punitive in nature and otherwise also in the case of termination it was necessary for the respondent to seek approval of the Director as per the provisions of Section 18 of the Act. 9. It is also contended that the result of the petitioner was very good and she was given good performance report in a document so given and endorsed by the parents yet without there being any document or any proof regarding unsatisfactory performance of the petitioner, the termination of her services was wholly arbitrary. 10. On behalf of the respondent No.1 certain objections were raised. According to him, the school run by the Air Force Educational Society at Air Force Head Quarters New Delhi is not receiving any aid from the Government of Rajasthan or the Central Government. It is also not affiliated and recognised by any University in Rajasthan or the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan. The society has its own service Rules and hence the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 and the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Rules, 1993 are not applicable. 11. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that the performance of the petitioner was not good nor satisfactory. It is also contended on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner was initially appointed for a probation of one year but petitioner has failed to discharge her duties to the satisfaction of the appointing authority and to give her an opportunity to improve her performance the probation period was extended upto 9.11.1999. It is also contended on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner was initially appointed for a probation of one year but petitioner has failed to discharge her duties to the satisfaction of the appointing authority and to give her an opportunity to improve her performance the probation period was extended upto 9.11.1999. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that during the period of probation, the services of the employee may be terminated without assigning any reason by giving one month's salary in lieu thereof. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also scanned the material on record. 13. The Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 423/1997 Management M/s Bharatpur Nutritional Products Ltd. Vs. Ishwar Chand and in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 422/1997 The Management M/s. Bharatpur Nutritional Products Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan has considered the case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The relevant portion of the aforesaid case runs as under: "Having carefully scanned the impugned order, I notice that all the contentions raised before me were analyzed and considered in great details by the Labour Court. The scope of supervisory jurisdiction was explained by the Supreme Court in Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Company Limited (2003) (3) S.C.C. 524 which runs in : (Para 7) "The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or the tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or reweigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision." 14. The wide jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 has to be exercised with great circumspection. The High Court cannot constitute itself into an appellate Court over Tribunals. Article 226/227 is a device to secure and advance justice and not otherwise. The wide jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 has to be exercised with great circumspection. The High Court cannot constitute itself into an appellate Court over Tribunals. Article 226/227 is a device to secure and advance justice and not otherwise. In a case of this nature, it is true, the High Court exercising the power of judicial review, would not interfere with the discretion of a Tribunal unless the same is found to be illegal or irrational. In an application for a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing an award of an Industrial Tribunal, the jurisdiction of the High Court is very limited. It can quash the award, inter alia, when the Tribunal has committed an error of law apparent on the face of record or when the finding of facts of the Tribunal is wholly perverse. It is also a settled law that in the exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court acts only in a supervisory capacity and not as an appellate tribunal. It does not review the evidence upon which the inferior tribunal proposed to base its conclusion, it simply demolished the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or manifestly erroneous, but does not, as a rule, substitute its own view for those of the inferior tribunal. 15. In the present matter, I do not find any jurisdictional error, perversity and illegality in the award passed by the respondent No.2 (Non-Governmental Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur). The finding of the Tribunal is based on the basis of material placed before him. There is no error apparent in the face on record. I, therefore, do not find any justification to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal dated 11.4.2000. In my view the writ petition does not call for any interference. The same is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******