PARVEEN SULTANA Vs. SULTAN UL ULOOM EDUCATION SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, both in the appeal as well as the writ petition. In the course of the hearing of the appeal it has transpired that there shall be interference in the order passed by the learned Single Judge only to the limited extent as to the declaration about the character of the Institution and to leave the question whether the Institution is one protected under Arts. 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India or nqt open for decision in accordance with law. It is possible in the Writ Petition to take notice of the allegations against the Management of the Institution and to order for such investigation or enquiry which may be necessary for find ing out the true state of affairs in the Institution. In course of the hearing, however, when we observed that the writ petitioner- appellant and the respondent Management were quarelling mostly on known issues concerning the relationship of the Management as the employer witin the petitioner-appellant as the employee and the parties can live in peace without disturbing the academic atmosphere of the Institution if they agree to withdraw their respective allegations and start a relationship without any charges against the appellant-petitioner as well as without any allegations against the Management by tine appellant-petitioner, learned counsel for the parties have responded favourably and have put according to their respective clients to withdraw allegations against each other and accept that their is a cordial relationship without any allegations by either party against the other. The Management is represented by the Secretary-cum-Correspondent of the Institution who is present in person in Court. The appellant-petitioner is present in person in court. They have shown their agreement to the proposal 'that they would withdraw allegations against each other and proceedings are closed with an order that Management has withdrawn its memo of charges against the appellant-petitioner and the letter, i.e., the appellant-petitioner, has withdrawn all her allegations against the Management of the Institution.

(2.) No employee, particularly a teacher, is expected to interfere with the affairs of the Management and has to confine to his or her work as a teacher ungrudgingly if Management does not deny to him or her the benefits of the conditions of service in any manner. Petitioner-appellant is thus not expected to enter into the affairs of the Management except in so far as her work as a teacher is concerned. The archaic concept that Managementhas the freedom of a Master who could take work as it liked from its servant, decide the conditions in which the servant worked and fire whenever he decided to do so is no longer available to any employer. It is bound as any other person to abide by the laws and to respect the status and rights of its employees. In case of an Educational Institution, the Management's interests are more limited than that of any other employer, since it has to act for implementing one of the Directive Principles in Part IV of the Constitution of India and to the extent it has taken the Soverign's or State's function, to see that it does not do anything which is prejudicial to the public interest. Both the petitioner-appellant as well as the respondents have shown their regard for each other and we have good reasons to think that they shall so behave in their respective fields with responsibility and with respect for each other.

(3.) For the reasons aforementioned, we are inclined to record that all charges against the writ petitioner-appellant so far levelled by the Management, i.e., respondents, are cancelled and quashed as withdrawn by the Management and all allegations by the petitioner-appellant against the respondents (Management) are cancelled and quashed as withdrawn by the writ petitioner- appellant. As a consequence, there shall be an order expunging all allegations wherever they are made by the appellant-petitioner against the respondents and all charges levelled against the appellant-petitioner by the Managementare similarly expunged wherever they are made. It is accordingly ordered that no action shall be taken by any authority on any allegations made by the appellant- petitioner against the respondents and no action shall be taken by the respondents or any other person on the basis of the memo of charges or any other charge so far made or pending against the appellant-petitioner by the Management. Both the appeal and the Writ Petition are ordered accordingly.