DAYASHANKARA DUBE Vs. EDUCATIONAL APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an unfortunate case where a teacher who has been removed from service by the management of a private educational institution which has attempted to deprive the petitioner of the statutory remedy available to him under S. 3 of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1974, by not communicating the order in writing to the petitioner to the effect that he is removed from service.

(2.) The facts of the case are these: The petitioner was a Hindi teacher in Sree Maruthi Hindi Vidyasala, B. V. K. Iyengar Road, Bangalore. He was appointed in the first instance on 22-5-1971. After a short break of service, he was appointed On a permanent basis by an order dated 19-10-1973 of the management, with effect from 9-4-1973. According to the petitioner without issuing any written order of removal from service, the management turned him out from the institution on 15-2-1974 and prevented him from discharging his duties. In the circumstances, as there was no order of termination, the petitioner filed OS. No. 485 of 1974 before the Court of the First Munsiff, Bangalore, for a declaration that he should be continued in service of respondent 2 and for payment of salary. In the written statement filed in the aforesaid suit, the management-defendant raised an objection that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction as the matter squarely falls within the jurisdiction of the Educational Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Act. According to the petitioner, he approached the Civil Court for the reason that he could not approach the Educational Appellate Tribunal unless there was a written order communicated to him under S. 7 of the Act by the management in view of the decision of this Court in Malnad Education Socity v. Kamataka Eductional Appellate Tribunal (1975) 2 KarLJ. 392. However, in view of the objection raisled by the management, the petitioner withdrew the suit and presented an appeal before the Educational Appellate Tribunal under S. 8 of the Act and also filed an application for condonation of delay as the period of three months had by then expired from 15-2-1974 on which date, according to the petitioner, he was turned out from Service of the institution. The' Educational Appellate Tribunal, by its order dated 23rd March 1976, on IA. NO. 1, refused toc ondone the delay in presenting the appeal before it on the ground that his approaching the Civil Court was not bona fide and therefore, the period during which the suit was pending could not be excluded and the benefit could not be given, for the purpose of condoning the delay under S. 5 of the Limitation Act. Consequently the Tribunal also rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.

(3.) The management, by not communicating the order removing the petitioner from service, placed him in a dilemma. He could not approach the Educational Appellate Tribunal as there was no written order given by the management and he could nPt secure relief through the Civil Court, in view of the bar of jurisdiction created by the Act.