RAM PRAWESH SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the writ petitioners have prayed, inter alia, for a writ in the nature of mandamus against the respondents not to give effect to the impugned termination letter being Memo No. F. 44/KVC/93-94/Admn./Pt-1, dated 30.4.93 issued by the Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Chittaranjan, and further commanding the respondents to allow the petitioners to resume their duties in rendering service in their respective posts of Primary Recruit Teachers (P.R.T.) and Trained Graduate Teacher (T.G.T.).

(2.) The petitioners have claimed to have been selected and appointed in their respective posts of P.R.T./T.G.T. from time to time on purely temporary, part-time and ad hoc basis as stop-gap arrangement. Though they have been rendering their service as a full-time permanent employee in the Kendriya Vidyalaya since their initial appointment, the authorities use to make artificial break now and then in their services. Petitioner No. 1 is an M.A., B.Ed. having requisite qualification for the Trained Graduate Teacher in Hindi and therefore, he was selected and appointed on 20th June, 1989 through proper selection in the interview for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher on purely temporary part-time and ad hoc basis on minimum payment of Rs. 900 per month. Therefore he was again appointed on the same terms and condition against the post of Primary Recruit Teacher in the Leave Vacancy Post of Smt. Manisha Gupta on minimum payment of Rs. 900 which was valid upto 30th April, 1990. He was, however, again selected in the post of P.R.T. as a stop-gap arrangement on purely temporary and part-time basis. The Principal had issued an order whereby an artificial break in service was made during the Summer Vacation. Similarly, the other petitioner No. 2 is a B.Sc. having requisite qualification for the post of Primary Recruit Teacher and therefore, he was selected and appointed on 18.3.91 through the process of selection and interview on minimum payment of salary of Rs. 900 and his appointment was valid upto 30th April, 1991. Thereafter, the Principal giving an artificial break in the service of the petitioner No. 2 permitted him to serve till 30th April, 1993. The petitioners though were shown to be on temporary and part-time basis but in fact they have been serving as a full-time teacher ever since their appointment. Without any adequate reason the Principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya used to pass an order of termination with effect from 1st May and allowed them again to resume work at the end of June or beginning of July in each and every academic session. Sometimes, the petitioners were asked by the Principal to act as invigilator for the L.D.C. written test held at Kendriya Vidyalaya. Unfortunately, petitioners' services were terminated with effect from 1.5.93 without any lawful excuse. Therefore, they have filed for the aforementioned relief. Since the petitioners were rendering services to the utmost satisfaction of the employer, they reasonably expected that their services would be regularised and shall be permanently absorbed as teachers in the said School. But to their utter dismay, the Principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya issued an impugned letter whereby he terminated their services.

(3.) This court passed an interim order restraining the respondents from giving effect or further effect to the notice dated 30th April, 1993 vide Annexure 'F' to the writ petition. They were further restrained for appointing any teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya until further order. The Principal and the Chairman were directed to submit a report as regards the claim of the petitioners by formulating a scheme as to how they instead of being absorbed from time to time, can be absorbed as full-time teachers. Even after the aforesaid order when the petitioners were not allowed to resume their duties or take up classes, they filed an application for initiating a contempt proceeding against the respondents. But the respondents filed an application for vacating the interim order dated 12th July, 1993 and the learned advocate appearing for them has, however, prayed to treat the vacating application as an affidavit-in-opposition to the main writ petition. In this court an application for addition of parties was allowed at the instance of 3rd party, subject to objection if any, at the time of hearing, but none has appeared on behalf of the added respondent.