SHEKARAIAH S/O SIDDAPPA Vs. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS PRIMARY EDUCATION THE PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS DEPARTMENT, N RUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash the impugned order dated 30.1.97 at Annexure -C; the impugned official memorandums dated 23.3.2007 at Annexures -A and B and to direct the respondents to release his salary from March 2005 to till date.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Physical Education Teacher by 5th respondent -Trust to work in the 4th respondent's School. His appointment was approved by the Department during 1967 and the school was admitted to grant -in -aid on 16.11.1992. Further, his salary was paid from February 1993 to March 1994 and thereafter, by order dated 20.9.1995, his salary along with other teachers was stopped. Being aggrieved, he filed a writ petition 6337/1996 before this Court and the same was disposed of and remanded to the 2nd respondent to conduct fresh enquiry. Respondent No. 2, after enquiry, passed an order on 30.1.1997 cancelling the appointment of the petitioner stating that the petitioner and three other teachers are excess as per the student teachers ratio. Further, according to the petitioner, on 31.3.2002, there was a merger of primary and higher primary school as one school. The 2nd respondent is said to have passed an order during August 2002, declaring that the petitioner is not an excess teacher and ordered for payment of arrears of salary to the petitioner and the same was paid from 1.4.2002 to 31.3.2005 by the respondents. However, on 17.11.2006, 2nd respondent has issued a show cause notice for terminating his appointment for which, reply was furnished by the petitioner. But, the 2nd respondent issued an official memorandum dated 23.3.2007 directing the 3rd respondent to relieve the petitioner from service and to cancel the grants. As against which, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) THE order at Annexure -A reveals that pursuant to the order of this Court, subject to the result of the writ petition, services of the some of the teachers and the petitioner have been continued. However, the petitioner is one among the persons who has been terminated from service stating that approval of the grant -in -aid in respect of the petitioner and others has been rejected and the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order while rejecting the reply furnished by the petitioner and other teachers and also having noted that there was an order passed by this Court in the writ petition favouring the Department What is being stated in the order of the 3rd respondent at Annexure -B is, the appointment of the petitioner and some other teachers are illegal appointments i.e., by way of not following the rules. As against which, once again, the petitioner is before this Court The Management has also taken a decision at Annexure -D by issuing a show cause notice directing the petitioner to appear before the Head Master. An order has been passed terminating the services of the petitioner and other teachers. In the order, it is stated that the total strength of students is 121 in the lower primary school and there is only scope for extension of grant -in -aid for three persons and by over sight it was mentioned as four persons to whom the grant -in -aid could be extended. Thereafter, an order has been passed terminating the services of the excess teachers appointed. An opinion was also given stating that the school is not running as a composite school from I to VII standard and therefore, grant -in -aid cannot be extended to six persons - Accordingly, the impugned order is passed, wherein it is stated that the petitioner and some other teachers are not entitled for extension of grant -in -aid benefits/salary. It is also stated that in the four schools run by the Management, only 12 persons were entitled for grant -in -aid out of 21 persons who were appointed by the Management as against the sanctioned strength. As per the instruction of the Management, salary has been extended to only 12 persons and remaining 9 persons were removed/terminated. The petitioner also appears to have submitted a representation pursuant to the order of this Court in W.P. 6337/1996.