DHARAMVIR SINGH RANA Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN 1967 petitioner was appointed as a lecturer (Maths in Jai Sita Ram Kisan Inter College, Jhinjhana, Muzaffarnagar (hereinafter referred to as the college) on probation for a period of one year and he was confirmed on that post on 8 -8 -1968. The Committee of Management of the college on 6 -6 -1971 resolved to abolish the subject of Mathematics due to paucity of students. This resolution was approved by the District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar (hereinafter referred to as the D.I.O.S.) on account of which the petitioner's services have been terminated by the management vide its order dated 7 -7 -1972 with effect from 1 -7 -1972. Against this order petitioner filed an appeal, which has been decided by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Meerut by his order dated 26 -6 -1981. By the above order the Deputy Director of Education has held that termination of the service of the petitioner by order dated 7 -7 -1972 without giving three months' notice or three months' pay -in lieu thereof was illegal. However he approved the grant of permission for abolition of subject of Maths and permitted the management of the college to terminate the services of the petitioner afresh. Petitioner has filed this writ petition, challenging the aforesaid order. The Committee of Management of the college has also filed writ petition No. 8929 of 1981, challenging the same order of the Deputy Director of Education. Sri A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has made three submissions, namely, (i) payment of salary for three months is a condition precedent for terminating the services of a permanent teacher of an Intermediate College and such a payment not having been made alongwith the order of termination, termination order is bad; (ii) a subject cannot be abolished by the management without the permission of the Board and such a permission not having been obtained from the Board, the abolition of the subject Maths and the order of termination of the services of the petitioner in pursuance thereof cannot be sustained; and (iii) the finding about the reduction of the number of students in Maths is unjustified and cannot be upheld. Sri Vishnu Sahai, learned counsel appearing for the management of the college in both the cases has on the other hand disputed the aforesaid submissions and has further argued that at the most petitioner is entitled for seven days' salary from 1 -7 -1972 to 7 -7 -1972.

(2.) REGULATION 26 of Chapter III of Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, which authorises the termination of service of a permanent employee of an institution by giving him three months' notice or pay in lieu thereof is reproduced below;

(3.) SUBMISSION of the learned counsel for the management that the order of termination should not be declared invalid but only seven days' salary should be directed to be paid to the petitioner, cannot be accepted. When the law requires giving of three months' notice or pay in lieu thereof for termination of service of an employee, no valid order of termination can be passed unless three months' notice or pay in lieu thereof is given. Giving of notice or pay in lieu thereof is a condition precedent for exercising the right of terminating the service of the employee and unless this condition is satisfied the order of termination of service cannot be passed. When the amount, which has been paid to the employed at the time of termination of his service is short of three months' pay the order of termination cannot be sustained. In the instant case as held by the Deputy Director of Education the amount, which has been deposited in lieu of notice is not equivalent to three months' salary of the petitioner. The termination of his service is as such, invalid.