RAJNI GUPTA Vs. MOTHERS INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition for quashing the order dated March 3, 1979, passed by respondent No. 3 by which he gave a finding that the the petitioner is not entitled to be reinstated.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed by respondents 1 & 2 as Librarian on October 18, 1972 and was also provided unfurnished accommodation in the Aurobindo Ashram. The petitioner proceeded on maternity leave on August 17, 1973. According to the petitioner, she reported back for duty but she was not assigned any work. On November 7, i975, the petitioner served , a notice on respondents 1 & 2 seeking the arrears of salary of the period of last two years. The petitioner was informed vide letter dated November 21, 1975, that the( petitioner had abandoned her job with the respondents with effect from December .1, 1973J and since then her name bad been removed from the rolls of the school. The petitioner filea an appeal under Section 8(3) of the Delhi School Education Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Rule 120(3) of the Delhi school Education Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') pleading that her removal from service on account of non-reporting for duty amounted to dismissal and she could not be dismissed without the respondents following the necessary procedure given in the Act and the Rules. Respondent No. 3 after recording evidence and hearing the arguments had given a firm finding that from the facts it is proved that the petitioner had abandoned her job and thus there was no question of petitioner being dismissed or removed from service by respondents 1 & 2. The Tribunal also gave a finding that in fact, the petitioner is not covered by the expression 'existing employee' as defined in Section 2(i) inasmuch as this particular Act came into force subsequently. This order has been challenged by the petitioner pleading that in fact, she had not abandoned her job and she had been reporting to join the duty but she was not allowed to join the duty and she had been removed from service by respondents 1 & 2 in violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The petitioner has pleaded that she is covered by the definition of 'existing employee' given in the Act and thus the provisions of the Act are applicable to her.

(3.) Affidavit was filed by Shri Ram Krishan Madan on behalf of the respondents opposing the writ. It was pleaded that the petitioner had abandoned the job and thus there was no question of her being dismissed or removal from service and hence the question of respondents 1 & 2 following 264 the procedure contained in the Rules did not arise. Counsel for the petitioner alone has advanced arguments because at the stage of final hearing no one appeared on behalf of the respondents. The question which needs decision in the present case is whether the order of the Tribunal is vitiated with any illegality with regard to its finding that the petitioner had abandoned the job The Court exercising its writ jurisdiction is not to appraise the evidence. The question of fact which goes to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal if determined by the Tribunal can, of course, be re-examined by this Court exercising writ jurisdiction but on other facts which go to the merits of the case the Court is not to sit in appeal while exercising writ jurisdiction and appraise the evidence to come to a different .finding. The finding of fact on merits could be challenged in a writ if the same is perverse in the manner that the same is based on no evidence to has been ignored any material evidence from consideration.