Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 515 (HP)

Hira Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2017-05-15

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2017
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. As per report of the Registry, newly added respondent No. 6 stands duly served, however, no one has appeared on its behalf, accordingly, respondent No. 6 is proceeded against ex parte. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs. i. That the writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued and oral order of termination may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii. The writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents No. 4 and 5 to allow the petitioner to work as cook and release the salary of the petitioner for the month of October and November immediately. Any such other order which this Hon’ble Court may deed fit and proper may also be passed in the circumstances of the case.” 3. No appointment order of the petitioner has been annexed with the petition. The fact of the petitioner having been appointed as mid-day meal worker is intended to be substantiated on the basis of Annexure P-1, which is a copy of a certificate, dated 26.09.2011, issued by CEC/Central Head Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Binan, District Kullu, in which, it is mentioned that the petitioner was appointed as a mid-day meal worker vide resolution No. 8, dated 30.09.2004. Grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner has been regularly performing his duties as a mid-day meal worker after his appointment since 30.09.2004, he was suddenly not allowed to work w.e.f. 16.11.2011, though neither any complaint was filed against him and otherwise also he was performing his duties with full dedication and sincerity to the complete satisfaction of his employer. It is further the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 4 in fact had invited applications for the appointment of mid day meal worker in GPS, Binan on 16.11.2011 and interviews were also held on 24.11.2011. According to the petitioner, he apprehended that Chairman Shri Tape Ram wanted to appoint his “near and dear” in place of the petitioner and that is why, services of the petitioner were verbally terminated so that vacancy of mid-day meal worker could be shown. It was further the case of the petitioner that he was arbitrarily not allowed to work by the respondents though he had completed more than seven years’ service and had in fact become eligible for regularization of his services. It was further the case of the petitioner that he was arbitrarily not allowed to work by the respondents though he had completed more than seven years’ service and had in fact become eligible for regularization of his services. As per him, despite his having made representation to respondents No. 4 and 5 to allow him to perform his duties as mid-day meal worker, he was not allowed to work. It is in this background that the writ petition was filed by the petitioner. 4. Replies to the writ petition stand filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 as well as by respondents No. 3 and 4. There is also on record an affidavit filed by Director of Elementary Education, dated 15th July, 2015, pursuant to order passed by this Court on 10.04.2015, which interalia states that mid-day meal workers are paid fixed remuneration of Rs. 1000/- per month during school days by the School Management Committee out of grants made available by the Centre and State Government in the ratio of 75:25 and the said appointment is non-governmental on a fixed remuneration. It is also mentioned in the said affidavit that appointing/disciplinary authority in respect of Cook-cum-Helper is the Executive Committee of the School Management Committee and in case performance of the selected candidate is not found satisfactory, then the School Management Committee has full power to remove such person. 5. It is further evident from the reply which has been filed by respondents No. 3 and 4 that the services of the present petitioner were not terminated verbally, as has been alleged in the writ petition but the same were terminated on the basis of a complaint dated 24.09.2011 (Annexure R-4 appended with the reply filed by respondents No. 3 and 4) filed by one Shri Duni Chand, JBT Teacher who alleged therein that on 20.09.2011, when he was in the class and imparting education to the students, at around 10:50 a.m. petitioner entered the class room and started verbally abusing him and thereafter also started physically assaulting him and in the said process, he (petitioner) also tore his (Duni Chand) clothes. Reply further demonstrates that pursuant to the said complaint received against the petitioner, a meeting of the General House, under Chairmanship of the Chairman of School Management Committee was held on 22.09.2011, in which, the complaint so received against the petitioner was considered alongwith other previous allegations which were against him about his mis-conduct and thereafter on account of said conduct of the petitioner, he was ordered to be removed from the job. 6. No rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner to either of the replies filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 or by respondents No. 3 and 4. 7. In my considered view, the petitioner in the present case is not entitled for any relief from this Court for the reasons that neither the petitioner has been able to demonstrate on record that any legal or fundamental right of his has been infringed by the respondents and further for the reason that the petitioner has also not approached this Court with clean hands. A perusal of the averments made in the writ petition demonstrate that very innocuous pleadings and prayers have been made in the same to the effect that the petitioner, who was working as mid-day meal worker w.e.f. 30.09.2004, was all of a sudden verbally not permitted to further join his services on 16.11.2011 onwards as respondents wanted to show the post of mid day meal worker vacant in the said school and one Shri Tape Ram, the Chairman of the School Management Committee intended to adjust someone in whom he had interest against said post. The petitioner has nowhere disclosed in the petition that in fact a complaint was filed against him by JBT Teacher Duni Chand and on the basis of said complaint, a decision was taken against him by the school management committee with regard to discontinuation of his services as mid-day meal worker. 8. This court is not commenting upon the veracity of the complaint or the legality of the proceedings which were undertaken by the School Management Committee out of which, services of the petitioner were terminated but least that was expected from the petitioner was that he should have approached the Court with clean hands and thereafter left it upon the Court to pass appropriate orders in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the petitioner did not approach the Court with clean hands. However, the petitioner did not approach the Court with clean hands. He concealed material facts and, as such, the petitioner cannot be shown any indulgence by this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Besides this, a perusal of the reply filed by respondents No. 3 and 4 also demonstrate that the complaint filed against the petitioner by Duni Chand was not the sole incident of misconduct alleged against him and previously also, the petitioner was guilty of such like misconduct and in fact, he had also tendered apology in this regard to the school concerned, which is on record as Annexure R-2 (appended with reply) dated 05.09.2009. Respondents have also appended with their reply Annexure R-3, which is a letter dated 08.04.2011 written by the present petitioner to the Central Head Teacher of the School concerned, from which it is apparent that the petitioner remained absent from duty w.e.f. 22.03.2011 to 07.04.2011, wherein probably he tried to convince the authority concerned that why he remained absent from duty and he disclosed that an FIR was registered against him, as a result of which he was arrested and that was the reason that he could not report for duty. Therefore, also in my considered view, on account of his act and conduct also, the petitioner is not entitled for any discretionary relief from this Court. 10. The contention of Ms. Sunita Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged act of respondents of verbally terminating the services of the petitioner cannot be sustained in law is also without any merit. Here it is not a case where the services of the petitioner were verbally terminated as alleged. His services were terminated by way of a resolution passed by the School Management Committee, which fact was concealed by the petitioner at the time when he filed the writ petition. Here it is not a case where the services of the petitioner were verbally terminated as alleged. His services were terminated by way of a resolution passed by the School Management Committee, which fact was concealed by the petitioner at the time when he filed the writ petition. Even if it is presumed that at the time of filing of this petition, the petitioner was not in possession of any order/minutes of meeting, vide which his services were terminated, but least that was expected from the petitioner was that after the factum of termination of his services by way of resolution by the School Management Committee concerned was brought on record by the respondents alongwith their replies, then immediately steps should have been taken by the petitioner to challenge the same by way of amending the writ petition, which till date has not been done by the petitioner. Therefore, here is a case where the basic order/basic communication, vide which services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondents, has not been assailed by him and in the absence of any challenge to the same in the writ petition, no relief even otherwise can be granted in favour of the petitioner. In view of the discussion above, the present writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.