SHRI OMAR VAISHYA VIDYALAYA COMMITTEE Vs. KANTI PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff was appointed as a Head Mistress w.e.f. 11.7.1972 in the defendant No. 2 school, which was managed by the defendant No. 1 Committee. THE plaintiff was confirmed on the said post in 1974. THE plaintiff alleged that she made a complaint to the defendant No. 1 about the working of Ashok Kumar Gupta, who was working as a clerk. THE defendant No. 1 did not like this, and the services of plaintiff were terminated w.e.f. 18.10.1981. THE plaintiff alleged that no enquiry was made nor was she provided a reasonable opportunity of hearing. THE plaintiff contended that her services could not be terminated upon the sweet will of the defendants and the alleged termination of the plaintiff's services was illegal and without jurisdiction and that the plaintiff continued to be in the service of the defendants with all the benefits. Accordingly, she filed a suit for a declaration praying that the enquiry proceedings and the order of the termination of the plaintiffs services be declared illegal, invalid and void and that the plaintiff continued to be in the services of the defendants as a Head Mistress with all the rights and privileges attached to the said post and that the plaintiff was further entitled to the all emoluments.

(2.) THE defendants in their written statement denied the plaint allegations and contended that the plaintiff was negligent in her duties and did not obey the directions and orders of the manager of the defendant No. 1 Committee. THE plaintiff was charge-sheeted and an enquiry was made and thereafter the defendant No. 1 in its meeting resolved to terminate the services of the plaintiff w.e.f. 18.10.1981. THE defendants contended that the services of the plaintiff are not governed by any Act, Regulations or Rules of the Government and that the defendants had full power to terminate the services of the plaintiff even without holding an enquiry and that the principle of master and servant was applicable. THE defendants further stated that the employee could not be forced to continue the service of the plaintiff.

(3.) THE trial court held that the defendants' educational institution was a recognised institution and is governed by the U. P. Recognised Basic Schools (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Teachers and Other Conditions) Rules, 1975, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). THE trial court further held that in view of Rule 11 of the Rules, the defendants could be terminate the services of the plaintiff without seeking prior approval from the Basic Education Officer. THE trial court held that since the order of the termination of the plaintiffs services was in violation of Rule 11 of the Rules, the order of termination of the plaintiff's services was null and void and that she continued to be in the services of the defendants.