B PARVATHI Vs. PRESIDENT CRPF EMPLOYEES EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, seeking an order in the nature of writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other writ or direction to call for the records of the third respondent relating to the termination order, dated 23.07.2004 in Ref.No.E-I-4/04.EC IV (JTO) and quash the same and consequently, direct the third respondent to reinstate the petitioners as Instructors / Junior Training Officers in any one of the new courses including the Information Technology and Electronics system proposed to be started in the fourth respondent Institution, after giving necessary training.

(2.) THE petitioners herein were appointed as Junior Training Officers / Radio and T.V. Instructors under the fourth respondent on 07.09.1990 and 29.08.1991 respectively by the third respondent by his order in Ref.No.ITI-1/90-91-MDS, dated 13.09.1990 and in Ref.No.ITI-1/91-92-MDS, dated 03.11.1991 respectively. THE first respondent, by his letter in Ref.No.E.I-6/2003-Adm-ITI (AVD)-72, dated 01.08.2003 addressed to the fourth respondent, that it was decided to wind up the Radio / T.V.Mechanic course from the academic year onwards due to the poor response from students, as no candidate was selected for the aforesaid course. THE third respondent, by his proceedings in Ref.No.E-I-4/04.EC-IV (JTO), dated 23.07.2004 terminated the services of the petitioners, as it was decided to wind up the Radio / T.V.Mechanic course from the session 2003-04. THE petitioners have further stated that they had given representations, dated 02.08.2004 and 03.08.2004 respectively to the respondents 1 to 3 to reinstate them as J.T.O or any other related post in Radio / T.V.Mechanic course or in Information Technology and Electronics system maintenance course. However, there was no reply from the respondents and hence, the petitioners filed Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai on 23.09.2004, however, the Central Administrative Tribunal returned the aforesaid O.A with the endorsement that since the petitioners are employees of CRPF, the Administrative Tribunals Act does not apply to them and they have to approach the High Court. Hence, they filed the writ petition, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE termination order issued on 23.07.2004 by the third respondent states that services of the petitioners would be terminated from 30.07.2004 thereby giving only one week notice to the petitioners as against one month notice and the third respondent has paid one month pay in lieu of one month notice, as contemplated by the aforesaid Rule. Since the aforesaid Rule is contravened, the termination order passed by the third respondent is liable to be quashed. On the aforesaid grounds, the petitioners herein have challenged the order of termination passed by the third respondent.