POORNAPRAJNA EDUCATION CENTRE Vs. PUSHPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed by the petitioner-private educational institute questioning the correctness of the order dated 25-10-1999 passed in EATMA No. 2 of 1998 by the learned Additional District judge, Hassan, and has sought for setting aside the same and prayed for dismissal of the appeal urging various grounds.

(2.) THE respondent-teacher filed an appeal under Section 94 of the karnataka Education Act, 1983 (for short "act 1983"), questioning the correctness of the order of termination dated 10-4-1998 passed by the petitioner urging various grounds. The petitioner-institution filed its written statement in justification of its order of termination inter alia contending that the respondent is not a permanent employee, as such no enquiry was required to be held to relieve her from her duty; that she was working on probation and the management of the institution took decision to relieve her and as such there is no illegality committed by the petitioner-institution and that it is not liable to pay the back wages and also not liable to reinstate the respondent in view of the nature of the service and the nature of relieving order which was impugned in the appeal. Respondent filed the rejoinder statement reiterating her contention that she was appointed as a probationer teacher and she has completed her probation period satisfactorily and her services were continued by the petitioner-institution; that she is a member of Provident Fund Scheme; the probationary period was not extended at any point of time invoking the right of the petitioner under Rule 7 of the private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Rules, 1978 (for short "rules 1978"), and that the termination order passed by the petitioner without conducting an enquiry, the order was rendered illegal. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Educational Appellate Tribunal framed one point for consideration as to whether the impugned order passed by the petitioner in relieving the respondent from her duties from the afternoon of 10-4-1998 is legal and valid. The eat after perusing the documents produced by the parties has answered the said point against the petitioner by recording its findings at paragraphs 8 and 9 of the impugned order with reference to the appointment order holding that the respondent was working as assistant teacher from 1-6-1995; she was on probation upto 10-4-1996 and thereafter she continued to work as such from 10-4-1996 to 10-4-1998 and since her probationary period was not extended, she is deemed to be the permanent employee of the petitioner-institution. Further, finding is recorded by the EAT holding that the petitioner-institution even after giving opportunity did not choose to produce the concerned file and proved that the respondent was a temporary employee as contended by it in its written statement. Therefore, the EAT has held that the termination order is not justified and has accordingly set aside the termination order and passed the order of reinstatement with full salary from the date of termination till the date of her reinstatement. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-institution has preferred this revision petition urging various grounds.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel Mr. Ashok Haranahalli for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis and in the absence of issuing confirmation order of her appointment as a permanent teacher in favour of the respondent, the finding recorded by the EAT holding that she is deemed to be confirmed in service as a permanent employee is in contravention of the provisions of the Act 1983 and Rule 7 of the Rules 1978. Further, placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Karanam Mallikarjuna Rao v the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Belgaum and Others , it is contended that Section 92 of the Act 1983 applies to a permanent employee of the educational institution; that the institution has got every right to remove the temporary employee as per the terms of the appointment order and as such enquiry was not necessary to be held prior to passing the order of termination, as the petitioner is governed by the terms and conditions of the appointment order given by it to the respondent. Lastly, it is contended that after the termination order on enquiry, it was found that the respondent was working as a teacher in the Indian english Medium School, Hanbal, Sakleshpur Taluk, Hassan District and as such she was gainfully employed and therefore she is not entitled for back salary as awarded by the EAT. Therefore, it is urged that this court in exercise of the power under Section 115 of the CPC can modify the back wages awarded by the EAT if this Court were to come to the conclusion that this is not a fit case for interference with the order of reinstatement with consequential benefits awarded by the EAT.