THRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY Vs. M LEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent in the Writ Appeal, who is the petitioner in the Original Petition challenged the order of termination of her services as honorary Homoeo Doctor in the Homoeo Dispensary of the appellant-municipality. THE petitioner was appointed as a Homoeo Doctor in the municipal Homoeo Dispensary on an honorarium basis. She was paid a sum of Rs. 400/- per annum as honorarium. Later the first respondent was served with a memo in which it was stated that the 1st respondent behaved rudely towards the members of the committee who came to inspect the dispensary. It was also stated in the memo that the people of the locality complained to the members of the committee that the first respondent was not taking any interest in the affairs of the dispensary. Along with the memo relevant portions of the report of the committee were also enclosed. THE first respondent was requested to reply to the above notice. THE first respondent filed her reply. THEreafter the first respondent's services were terminated. Though she filed an appeal before the third respondent, the same was rejected as per Ext. P13.

(2.) THE learned Single Judge allowed the Original Petition setting aside Ext. P8 order of termination and Ext. P13 order rejecting the appeal. According to the learned Single Judge, the appellant-municipality ought to have given an opportunity to the first respondent to defend her case. If the municipality wanted to rely on the report of the committee the first respondent should have been given an opportunity to cross-examine the members of the committee. THErefore, the learned judge was of the view that the termination of the service of the first respondent was against the principles of natural justice. THE above judgment is under challenge in this Writ Appeal.

(3.) IN this appeal, the first respondent was appointed as honorary Homoeo doctor by the appellant-Municipality. The above post is not part of the Municipal Common Service. The members of the Municipal Common service or any other employee of the Municipality are not civil servants so as to attract Art. 311 of the Constitution. Therefore, the first respondent cannot successfully contend that there was violation of the mandatory provisions contained in Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution.