MUMTAZ JAHAN KHAN Vs. BHARAT SCOUTS AND GUIDES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an employee of the Bharat Scouts & Guide, has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ventilating her grievance against the order dated 25.06.2005 by which she has been compulsory retired on attaining the age of 50 years and completion of 20 years of service. It is contended that since such action is taken only on account of prejudices born in the mind of respondents, to reduce the establishment expenses in terms of the decision taken in a State Level meeting of the said respondents on 20.09.2004, the order impugned is bad in law.

(2.) Facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed in the Bharat Scouts & Guides at State Branch as was found fully suitable to be appointed on the post vide an order dated 15.06.1979. Initial appointment of the petitioner was on the post of Assistant State Organizing Commissioner (Guide). The petitioner has rendered satisfactory services and was made to work on the post at Division level. Considering the merits of the petitioner, she was posted on the post of State Organizing Commissioner at Bhopal, was given a promotion as Joint Secretary and was given the current charge of State Level Secretary at head office of the respondents at Bhopal. The petitioner was communicated adverse entry recorded in her confidential report against which the representations were made timely but despite making reminders, the decision was not given on the said representation. The petitioner was senior most and was entitled to be considered for promotion, therefore, she made a representation claiming such promotion. Because of these prejudices born in the mind in terms of the decision taken in the meeting of the State level committee, action was taken and the petitioner was made to compulsory retired by the impugned notice. Such an action of the respondents was per se illegal as the scheme made for compulsory retirement was not properly examined nor any action was taken pursuant to the said policy or scheme. In fact by making a mathematical calculation of merit of the petitioner, which was reflected in the policy made by the State Government in circular dated 12.12.2001 she was made to compulsory retired, whereas the said circular was recalled vide circular dated 20.03.2003. In terms of the circular dated 22.08.2000, the case of the petitioner was not properly screened and, therefore, action taken by the respondents was bad in law.

(3.) Refuting the allegations made by the petitioner in the petition, a return has been filed by the respondents No.2 and 3 stating that the respondent is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is contended that the respondent-organization is a society registered under the Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam and, therefore, would not be termed as an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and will not be subjected to any writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is further contended that overall service performance of the petitioner was looked into. The screening committee has found the petitioner ineligible to continue in the employment any longer and in terms of the circular made by the State Government, after due scrutiny of the case of the petitioner, she was compulsory retired. It is, therefore, contended that the action taken by the respondents is just and proper and need no interference from this Court. The direction was given to the respondents to produce the original record of screening committee, which has been made available.