SATYA CHHIKARA Vs. MANAGING COMMITTEE ARMY PUBLIC SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I would have ordinarily transferred this writ petition to the Delhi School Tribunal for decision inasmuch as the orders terminating services passed by the school have to be decided by the Delhi School Tribunal, however, considering that this writ petition is four years old; was admitted to hearing way back on 30.11.2010; early hearing was declined on 9.4.2013; and the fact that I have already held the main issue in this writ petition against the present respondent no.1-school as per judgment dated 30.8.2013 in W.P.(C) 1439/2013, I am therefore exercising my extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to hear and decide this case.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed in terms of a regular selection process. That regular selection process was initiated in terms of advertisement dated 16.10.2006 issued by the Army Welfare Education Society, which runs the respondent no.1-school. Petitioner was given the call letter for interview on 9.2.2007 and thereafter a contractual appointment as a Primary Teacher (PRT) was given of one year from 2.4.2007 to 31.3.2008 in terms of the letter dated 2.4.2007 of the respondent no.1-school. Though the contract specified appointment of one year, however, the performance was to be reviewed after completion of three years in terms of para 4 of the appointment letter dated 2.4.2007. Petitioner's services were given an artificial break and the petitioner was again appointed as a Primary Guest Teacher for the period from 8.4.2008 to 17.5.2008 in terms of the letter dated 17.4.2008 of the respondent no.1- school. Petitioner's services were thereafter further extended in terms of the letter of the respondent no.1-school dated 7.7.2008 for the period from 1.7.2008 till 20.5.2009. Petitioner's services were ultimately terminated by the respondent no.1-school by the letter dated 5.2.2009 stating that original appointment of the petitioner was contractual only to meet the temporary need of the school due to the non-availability of qualified teachers of respective subjects. The period of completion of contractual appointment from 20.5.2009 was brought forward to 28.3.2009.

(3.) THE facts of the case are strikingly similar to the facts in the case of Army Public School (supra) in WPC 1439/2013 inasmuch as again the same very respondent-school has been giving appointments, terminating them, and again re-appointing the employee at the same post viz a primary teacher in this case. Clearly therefore, the appointments and terminations when seen in a sequence have to be held as a sham action and the object of the illegal action of the respondent no.1 is to deny the statutory benefits of statutory employment and monetary emoluments which are payable to regular employees of a school. The termination letter dated 5.2.2009 in the present case reads as under:-