K P MOHAMMED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a teacher working in A. M. U. P. School, vengoor under the management of the second respondent, was suspended by the manager with effect from 21st April 1979 on the ground of his being involved in a criminal case and the suspension was continued after 15 days with the requisite permission from the Assistant Educational Officer, Perintalmanna, who is the 3rd respondent in this case. On 16th October 1980 the petitioner along with others was convicted under S. 448 and 427 IPC. read with S. 34 IPC. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 with a default sentence. THEreafter, the 3rd respondent appears to have requested or directed the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner on the ground that the criminal case ended only in a sentence of fine but not a sentence of imprisonment. THE relevant letters are exts. P-3, P-4, P-5 and P-6 to which the second respondent sent replies, Exts. R-2 to R-4. It appears that on 20th August 1981 the Director of Public instruction, Trivandrum passed an order directing the Headmaster of the school to prepare arrear bills regarding the pay and allowances due to the petitioner with effect from 28th january 1981. THEreupon, the second respondent filed Ext. P-1 petition before the then Hon'ble Minister for Education. THE petitioner filed objections as evidenced by Ext. P-8. THE Government on 9th September 1981 under Ext. P-2 order passed orders staying the order, dated 20th August 1981 of the Director of Public Instruction. On 14th April 1981 the second respondent issued Ext. P-7 letter stating, inter alia, that the petitioner would complete 55 years on 14th july 1981 and in view of the criminal case he is not eligible to continue in service till the end of the academic year as contemplated by the Rules. In Ext. P--7 it was further stated that on attaining the age of superannuation, viz. , 55 years, his services are terminated with effect from 14th July 1981. THE conviction entered against the petitioner was challenged by him in Criminal appeal No. 74 of 1980 before the concerned appellate court and the appeal was allowed as per judgment, dated 30th November 1981 acquitting the petitioners and others. Under Ext. P-9 the petitioner brought the fact regarding acquittal to the notice of the Government. In this background the petitioner has filed this Original Petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs: (i) to issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order, commanding the first respondent to dispose of Exts. P1 and P2 immediately; (ii) to issue a further writ of mandamus to the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner forthwith in the A. M. U. P. School , Vengoor without any further delay; (iii) to issue a direction that the petitioner be paid the salary and allowances legally due to him from 21st April 1979; and (iv) to quash Ext. P7 letter sent by the second respondent (This prayer was incorporated by way of amendment ).

(2.) THERE is no dispute between the parties regarding the first prayer. Both sides are anxious that Ext. P1 be disposed of at the earliest. Such a direction will be issued. Regarding the prayer No. 3 there is some dispute between the parties. So far as the petitioner is concerned the liability for payment of pay and allowances rests with Education Department. The first respondent will be directed to issue appropriate orders or directions in this matter while disposing of Ext. P1.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relied on a line of decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Sukhdev singh v. Bhagatram AIR. 1975 SC. 1331; Ramana v. International Airport authority of India and others AIR. 1979 SC. 1628; U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Vijay Narayan AIR. 1980 SC. 840 and Om Prakash v. Union of India AIR. 1981 sc. 212. THEse are leading cases decided by the Supreme Court explaining the exact connotation of "authority of State" or "instrumentality of state" for the purpose of Art. 12 of the Constitution. THEse decisions have laid down more or less similar tests to decide whether a particular body, corporation or organisation is or is not an instrumentality or authority of state' for the purpose of Art. 12 of the Constitution.