CHUNILAL ISHWARLAL PATEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was the head master in a school by name, Sarvajanik Vidyalaya (which is run by the respondent No. 5) has filed this petition challenging certain orders regarding the termination of his services.

(2.) Certain facts are not in dispute at this stage. The petitioner was appointed as head-master on probation on 14-11-1969. The services of a temporary servant can be terminated by giving one months notice. On 15-9-1971 the respondent No. 5 (through its President) terminated the services of the petitioner by the end of 14-10-1971 by giving one months notice. However, before the expiry of this period of one month the President terminated the services of the petitioner with effect from 4-10-1971. The petitioner preferred an appeal against this termination on the ground that it is illegal and not in consonance with the provisions of the Grant-in-aid Code. On 29-7-1972 that appeal was allowed. The termination of service was held bad and the respondent No. 5 was directed to reinstate the petitioner. However, the respondent No. 5 did not reinstate the petitioner though the petitioner as also the Director of Education wrote a number of letters to the respondent No. 5 in that respect. As this order emanating from the appeal being allowed was disobeyed, it appears that the Government grants of the respondent No. 5 were stopped. But, that had no effect on the respondent No. 5 and the statement continued; meaning thereby that the petitioner was not reinstated even though his appeal was allowed. In June, 1974 the respondent No. 5 wrote a letter to the Director of Education making certain proposals and sought approval of the Director. On 21-6-1974 the Director wrote a letter (Exhibit T to the petition) to the respondent No. 5. It would be convenient to reproduce that letter:---

(3.) The petition was initially heard by the Acting Judicial Commissioner on 16-10-1982. It was summarily dismissed. Against this decision the petitioner filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 1 of 1983. (Shri Chunilal Ishwarlal Patel v. The Union of India) That appeal was allowed on 22-9-1983. The judgment has been reported in 1984(1) All India Services Law Journal p. 81: The Division Bench found that the dismissal of the writ petition was not correct. The judgment of the Division Bench is a detailed one. It has taken into account the various prayers that were made in the petition. In fact, there were two prayers i.e. (i) quashing the order dated 21-6-1974 and (ii) writ or direction to the Director of Education to compel the management of the school to reinstate the appellant. The Division Bench came to the conclusion that the relief No. (1) can be appropriately and validly claimed. However, it was found that the relief No. (2) is not permissible. After recording these findings the Division Bench allowed the appeal. Consequently, the petition is being heard on merits.