H G VAJRA SHREE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) as far as the field of service law is concerned, the courts in this country have for some time now being repeatedly deprecating sharp and unfair practices particularly when these relate to members of the teaching profession. The expectation was that with the passage of time and the consistent disapproval in the strongest terms, by the higher judiciary, that unethical and obnoxious practices would be discontinued. That unfortunately is not the case, and in the international year dedicated to women, this high court has come across one more instance where a lady teacher finds herself faced with an even more difficult problem insofar as, after having put in 6 years of service, when she requested for regularisation, her services were abruptly discontinued. What compounds the case is that when she approached this court for redressal of her grievances, she has been faced with an abnormally high degree of resistence and the manner in which this litigation has been conducted, speaks volumes. This case represents the familiar situation that prevails in thousands of other similar ones where even though a clear vacancy exists, on all sorts of hollow and so called pious reasons, the petitioner was appointed on a temporary and time-bound contractual basis and that too on a consolidated salary well below the one prescribed for that post. This practice is thoroughly dishonest and a court can see through the games that are involved despite the furious attempts to whitewash the situation insofar as the management can hire and fire at will conveniently flouting the Provisions of the regulations that apply and above all, get the same job done on a fraction of what a teacher would normally have to be paid. That these unpardonable practices should be rampant in a country where the culture and heritage professes that members of the teaching profession should be regarded as "gurus" is a matter of shame and it is equally necessary therefore that when those cases come up before the courts the correctives should be would apply to not only that but all similar situations.

(2.) the petitioner in this case was appointed as a arts teacher in the seshadripuram boys high school, Bangalore, on contract basis on 1-6-1988. She has been continued such as upto the year 1994 with the customary artificial breaks whereunder, the services of the poor teacher are discontinued prior to the vacations and the person is reemployed thereafter. The petitioner was initially paid a consolidated salary of Rs. 500/- per month and thereafter, rs.1,150/- per month whereas the regularly recruited teachers were entitled to a basic pay alone of over Rs. 1,400/- per month. The institution is an aided institution and the petitioner has pointed out that she was appointed in one of the two clear vacancies which position is undisputed. The petitioner contends that the state of Karnataka has issued a notification dated 19-2-1991 whereunder, it has been prescribed that teachers appointed on contract basis prior to 13th july, 1989, are eligible for absorption. The petitioner further contended that the Supreme Court of India in the decision in the case of Karnataka state private college stop-gap lecturers association v state of Karnataka and others , had directed that certain categories of teachers such as the petitioner who have been appointed on an ad hoc basis temporarily for years with breaks every year were liable to be regularised. The petitioner submitted that she has been discriminated against insofar as these principles have been made applicable in the case of other school teachers and that they have been denied to her by the respondent-institution, which is an aided institution. Secondly, the petitioner submitted that this was a case in which she had applied to the management to regularise her services and in order to hit back on at her for having asked for justice, that her services had been discontinued. This last aspect of the matter assumes considerable significance because the respondent-institution which is represented before me by Sri Raghavendra Rao and on whose behalf it has been contended that it is one of the reputed institutions of this city ought to have been expected to behave better. It is obvious that the management which had got away with these illegalities for years together was incensed by the request coming from a small person, and that too a woman, and decided to hit back at her with such ferocity in the expectation that not only she but no other similarly situated employee would dare to stand up for their rightful entitlements. This attitude and behaviour is a matter of some seriousness and something which this court did deprecate. In the course of the proceedings which have been spreadover several months, the respondents were repeatedly directed to take corrective steps but their attitude has been so hardened, that they prefer to litigate rather than observing the law. It is a lamentable fact that in the unequal fight between an employee and an institution, even in instances where the employer has no case, legal arm twisting is resorted to with the knowledge that a single individual employee has very poor fighting capacity and that it becomes impossible to withstand long term protracted litigation and it is a tragedy of our times that in many such instances, the wrongdoer succeeds by default. In this case, where the respondents were hell-bent on preventing the petitioner from continuing with her job functions, despite interim orders and directions from this court, the respondents have successfully defied every one of them upto the present point of time and have kept her out of her job and have refused to pay her salary. The question immediately arises therefore as to what should be the attitude of the court when faced with a situation of this type. If such a respondent is allowed to get away, it would send out the wrong signals particularly to lakhs of other similarly situated tortured and tormented employees and if they happen to be the members of the teaching profession and women, even more so, because the message would peter down that it is imprudent to even approach the law courts. In this context therefore, a court will have to come down severely in any case where such a situation is prevalent. To my mind, both on facts and in law, this is a case that could have been disposed of within a matter of minutes because the breach is as clear as a day light. The litigation was however conducted as though it is an epic case and the arguments went on interminably on behalf of the respondents so much so that statements and submissions have been repeated ad nauseam, the sole object being to pressurise the petitioner with the sheer length and expense of the litigation. The Supreme Court has repeatedly laid down that such action requires to be countered inter alia by the award of exemplary costs, as judicial time is extremely precious, the court proceedings are expensive and attempts to choke and obstruct the course of Justice must be sternly dealt with.

(3.) to summarise the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, her learned Advocate had contended that the court will have to construe her appointment as being one made to a regular post on a permanent basis and it would therefore have to direct the respondent-institution to pay her salary in that behalf and to treat her as a regular employee. Learned Advocate pointed out that there is no dispute about the fact that a vacancy did exist, that the petitioner is duly qualified, that she has been working in that post for the last several years and under these circumstances, there is no conceivable ground on which reliefs can be denied to her. The solitary justification for the action on the part of the respondents is that they are an aided institution and that in all matters relating to employment they are governed by the rules and regulations laid down by the department. It is contended that they are required to obtain the requisite sanction and follow the procedure prescribed in the rules framed by the department in all matters relating to the appointment of teachers. They contend that despite repeated requests to the department that the requisite sanctions were not accorded and that therefore, they were left with no option except to make ad hoc appointments and payments from year to year as it was absolutely necessary in the interest of the students that the requisite teachers must be made available by the institution. What is basically contended is that the respondents have no power outside the framework of the rules to either appoint or regularise the petitioner and that in these circumstances, they were left with no option except to do what they had been doing. There are several unanswered questions as far as this defence is concerned, the first of them being as to why, if the respondents claim to be so righteous, did they deprive a lady teacher of the regular emoluments and that too during the vacations and why did they not take necessary steps to ensure that the requisite sanctions were accorded. On facts, the action of the defendants is not only defenceless but calls for structures.