SANDEEP SATHE Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was appointed as Lower Division Teacher on 15th May, 1990. Services of the petitioner were terminated on 30th January, 1999 as per order Annexure P 6. He fell ill on 8.12.1998. Petitioner alleges that he telephonically informed the fact and later on in writing also, the fact of his illness was informed to the Institution, however, the Principal sought an explanation by writing letter dated 15.12.1998; the. medical certificate was furnished and after recovery from illness, petitioner joined his duties on 21.12.1998. In January, 1999 the petitioner again fell ill as he was not completely recovered from the ailment. The management wanted anyhow to get rid of the petitioner and accommodate a candidate of their own choice. His services were dispensed with on the ground that he was carrying some other professional activity which resulted in his being absent unauthorisedly time to time from the school. The other allegations were also mentioned about the involvement in private tution and misbehaviour with the students. Stigma was cast to the effect that he was found not a fit person to be retained in the institution as his conduct was affecting obviously smooth functioning of the school. The order stigmatizing the petitioner was passed without holding any enquiry, therefore, it was illegal, arbitrary. It also cast stigma and is punitive in nature.

(2.) THE respondents in their return supported the order and the stand taken is that no enquiry was necessary in view of the. conduct of the petitioner of which he was given warnings from time to time.

(3.) IN K. Krishnamacharyulu and others v. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering and another (AIR 1998 SC 295), the Supreme Court considered the question of the private institutions; teachers' right of obtaining pay scales at par with the Government employees; the private institutions were not receiving any grant in aid. However, considering the fact that the institutions in question are catering to the element of public interest, therefore, they can invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.