REETA MUKESH SEHGAL Vs. UNION BHARAT SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has instituted the present writ petition challenging the judgment and order dtd. 28/9/2006 passed by the College Tribunal in Appeal No. 9 of 2006. By the said order, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal and held the Petitioner liable for termination of service.

(2.) The Petitioner states that she possesses M.A. and M.Phil. qualification. She commenced her teaching career as a Lecturer at V.M.V. and J.M.T. College, Nagpur during the academic year 1982 to 1983. Thereafter, she served as a full time Lecturer at S.D. College for Women, Jalandhar during 1983 to 1984 and subsequently at H.M.V. College, Jalandhar from 8/10/1984 to 30/6/1989. The said institution was managed by the D.A.V. Management Committee. The Petitioner was appointed as a full time Lecturer on probation in Respondent No. 2 College with effect from 1/7/1989 and was confirmed upon successful completion of probation. She was thereafter appointed as In Charge Principal with effect from 1/6/1994 and subsequently as Principal on probation for one year with effect from 25/6/1995. Her appointment was approved by Respondents No. 3 and 4.

(3.) During her tenure as Principal, the Petitioner noticed that Shri Mahesh Kapur, son of the then Secretary of Respondent No. 1 Trust, was conducting coaching classes wherein lecturers of Respondent No. 2 College were compelled to teach and students were required to enroll and pay donations. Complaints regarding these activities were published in newspapers and were also submitted to the Joint Director of Education. A writ petition was also filed before the High Court by the Forum for Fairness in Education challenging such activities. The Petitioner reported these matters to Shri Rajpal Kapur, the then Secretary of Respondent No. 1 Trust, and other authorities. She was informed that Shri Rajpal Kapur supported the activities of his son. A fact finding team from the University of Mumbai visited the College, during which Shri Rajpal Kapur directed the Petitioner to tutor students to deny the allegations, failing which she would face termination. He also directed termination of teaching and non teaching staff despite positive reports submitted by the Petitioner and retained his daughter in law notwithstanding an unsatisfactory service record.