SHAHEEDA BEGUM Vs. PRINCIPAL ARMY SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TERMINATION of the services of the petitioners, without an enquiry being held and without the petitioners being given an opportunity of being heard, is subjected to challenge in this writ petition as being arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of India. Since the contentions in both the writ petitions, are more or less similar, and the respondents are common, it is appropriate that both the writ petitions are clubbed and heard together and a common order passed.

(2.) IT would suffice if the facts, in W. P. No. 30509 of 1997, are taken note of. Facts, to the extent necessary for this writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Lower Divisional Clerk, on 17. 1. 1994, in the Army School at Secunderabad. His services were confirmed on 17. 7. 1995. One Mrs. Helen Daniel joined as the Principal of the Army School in December, 1996/january, 1997 and, according to the petitioner, ever since then she developed an inimical attitude and was on the look out for ways and means to harass him. A few instances where Mrs. Helen Daniel is said to have created problems for the petitioners are stated in the affidavit. It is further stated that, on 1. 9. 1997, the said Principal communicated adverse remarks in the petitioner's confidential reports for the year ending 30th June, 1997, to which the petitioner is said to have made a representation, vide letter dated 3. 9. 1997. Petitioner was issued show-cause on 26. 9. 1997, which, in effect, was an order of termination from service, informing him that his services would be terminated with effect from 8. 12. 1997. The petitioner submitted his reply, to the show cause notice dated 26. 9. 1997, stating that he did not receive any other letter from the respondent prior to the show cause notice. Petitioner sought a personal interview with the Chairman of the Army School, secunderabad, vide letter dated 7. 10. 1997, which was granted on 31. 10. 1997. The petitioner was informed that his services were terminated. Petitioner contends that termination of his services, without being giving an opportunity of showing cause and without assigning reasons, violates his Constitutional Rights, that termination of his services was for extraneous reasons and that his right to life, which includes the right to livelihood, was infringed violating his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reference is made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 193, in this regard.

(3.) INSOFAR as the maintainability of the writ petition is concerned, the petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, states that the Army School, Secunderabad (A. P.) is a wholly owned and controlled Institution of the Indian Army, thus qualifies to be covered under the definition of "other Authorities" under Article 12 of the constitution of India and is therefore subject to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.