Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 623 (MP)

Gayatri Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2022-04-19

SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI

body2022
ORDER 1. Heard finally with the consent of both the parties. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the order dt. 3.2.2009 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.4, whereby she has been terminated from the post of Lecturer (Hindi). 2. Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the private institution named as Janta Higher Secondary School, Majhgawan, District Rewa and was subsequently promoted as Lecturer on 1.7.1998 by the Education Committee of the school. On 1.12.2000, the State Government took over Janta Higher Secondary School, Majhgawan and posts were sanctioned for absorption of employees working therein. Thereafter, the name of the petitioner was considered by the screening committee and she was found fit for absorption on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade I. Copy of recommendation letter dt.18.4.2001 is annexed as Annexure P/2 as well as report of screening committee is annexed as Annexure P/3. The Principal of the school also issued a certificate on 9.8.2008 to the effect that the name of the petitioner has been sent for absorption. However, to the utter surprise of the petitioner since 1.12.2000 i.e. the day since the school was taken over by the respondents, the salary was stopped. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed W.P. No.1098/2003 praying for release of her salary. The petition was disposed of vide order dt.29.4.2008 with the direction to the respondents to verify whether the petitioner is working continuously since 1.12.2000 and if she is still working, necessary steps to pay the salary be taken within a period of three months of furnishing the order. The said order was communicated to respondent No.4 on 7.5.2008. However, no action was taken and no salary was released, therefore, being aggrieved, Contempt Petition No.1009/2008 was filed. During pendency of Contempt Petition, the salary was released to the petitioner. However, simultaneously she was terminated vide the impugned order dt.3.2.2009. The said order is under challenge in this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after about two years i.e. on 28.3.2003, the order of absorption of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that the screening committee, which passed the order of absorption, was not properly constituted. However, simultaneously she was terminated vide the impugned order dt.3.2.2009. The said order is under challenge in this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after about two years i.e. on 28.3.2003, the order of absorption of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that the screening committee, which passed the order of absorption, was not properly constituted. The said order was challenged by some of the candidates before Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, which was registered as O.A. No.1145/2003, wherein an interim order was also passed by the tribunal on 10.4.2003 by which the effect and operation of the order dt.28.3.2003 was stayed. After abolition of State Administrative Tribunal, the said Original Application was transferred to this Court and was registered as W.P. No.22694/2003 and the interim order was continued thereafter. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that despite the petition being allowed, the identical persons including the petitioner were not paid the salary, therefore, the petitioner filed W.P. No.297/2009 challenging the communication dt.17.12.2008 (Annexure P/10). The said Writ Petition was pending, however, the impugned order dt. 3.2.2009 was passed terminating the services of the petitioner but the salary of the petitioner from 1.12.2000 to 14.12.2008 was released vide cheque for the sum of Rs. 3,62,924/- on 4.2.2009. Writ Petition No.297/2009 was amended challenging the order of termination dt.3.2.2009. The said Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dt.21.12.2009 with a direction to the petitioner to file an appeal before respondent No.2 within three weeks from the date of order. The petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 on 1.1.2010. The appeal was thereafter transferred to respondent No.2 for a decision on 1.1.2010. However, the respondent No.2 till date has not cared to decide the appeal and is sitting tight over the legitimate claim of the petitioner, therefore, having no other efficacious remedy, the petitioner had approached this Court. Learned counsel further submitted that after taking over of the school by the State Government, the services of the employees, who were absorbed vide order dt.28.2.2001 stood cancel after a period of two years on the ground that the screening committee was not properly constituted as per rules. Thereafter, no order of absorption was issued and no screening was held. Learned counsel further submitted that after taking over of the school by the State Government, the services of the employees, who were absorbed vide order dt.28.2.2001 stood cancel after a period of two years on the ground that the screening committee was not properly constituted as per rules. Thereafter, no order of absorption was issued and no screening was held. However, one Brijendra Prasad Tiwari filed W.P. No.8371/2005 seeking absorption and after direction of this Court, the screening committee, in respect of Brijendra Prasad Tiwari, was constituted and the committee terminated the services of Brijendra Prasad Tiwari on the ground that his name was never recommended for absorption. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he has challenged the impugned order on three grounds, namely; (1) The petitioner does not belong to Other Backward Class category. (2) Reservation does not apply in case of merger of private school with the Government school. (3) General category juniors have been absorbed, whereas the petitioner has been left out. 5. It is further contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondents themselves in Annexure P/3 have admitted that the petitioner belongs to the General category and is eligible for appointment on the post of Siksha Karmi Grade-I. So far as reservation is concerned, the same does not apply in the case of merger of private school to Government school. Learned counsel for the petitioner stressed upon the fact that the rules of reservation are not applicable to unaided private educational institutions which fact has also been clarified by the State Government vide memo dt.3.2.1997 and 24.10.1998, wherein it was further clarified that the rules of reservation are not applicable to un aided private educational institutions. 6. Per contra, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that out of 23 sanctioned post, 8 posts were sanctioned for Siksha Karmi Grade-I (Lecturer) in which only one post was kept for Lecturer in OBC category and she was junior to one Shri Dinesh Patel of the same category and he being senior his case was recommended for absorption and he was absorbed by the screening committee, whereas the petitioner was left out. It is further contended that since 23 posts were available and all 23 candidates were absorbed except the petitioner since it obvious that services of remaining staff would come to an end automatically, therefore, the petitioner cannot raise a plea of discrimination. No illegality has been passed in the impugned order. Accordingly, no case is made out for warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. It is not in dispute that the case of the petitioner was recommended for absorption on the post of Siksha Karmi Grade-I in the general category vide orderdt.18.4.2001. Even in the staff list annexed at Annexure P/3, the petitioner was found eligible for absorption on the ground that she has required classification and she belongs to general category. It is not in dispute that other 23 employees have already been absorbed in the light of various orders passed by this Court or at the behest of department itself. Admittedly, the petitioner belongs to the general category. It is also not in dispute that the juniors of the petitioner in the general category have been absorbed. The respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner on the wrong premises of being an OBC category, therefore, this Court finds no reason to deprive the petitioner from the benefit of absorption as has been extended to other similarly situated employees. The petitioner has made out a case for interference. Accordingly, the impugned order dt. 3.2.2009 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside. The petitioner is reinstated back in service and deemed to have been absorbed in the Government school. It is further directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to receive all the consequential benefits including arrears of salary. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.