IGNACE JATE Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Praying for quashing the order dated 31-3-92 terminating his services, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(2.) In the writ application, it has been averred that Hamirpur High School, Rourkela, a school established by the minority community is an aided educational institution as defined in Sec. 3(b) of the Orissa Education Act. The school was established by the Catholic Schools Committee, Rourkela. The petitioner, a trained graduate was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Hamirpur High School, Rourkela by the Catholic School's Committee vide letter No. A/6/90 dated 22-1-90. After completion of the stipulated period of appointment he was relieved and was again reappointed. While he was serving as such, Sundergarh Catholic Secondary School Teachers' Association filed a writ application numbered as O.J.C. No. 3832/90. which was allowed, and certain directions were issued by High Court. As the directions issued in the writ application, were not complied with by the School authorities, a contempt proceeding was initiated. Subsequently, thereafter there was some difference between the school authorities and its employees and as the teachers were not allowed to enter into the school, another writ application was filed by the teachers, the number of which is O.J.C. No. 3721/92 pending adjudication and a report has been called for in that case. The petitioner is an active member of the said Teachers Association. Though the petitioner is qualified and is eligible to continue in the post, and the post is available, the petitioner's service was terminated, and he was relieved on 31-3-92 by the Secretary of Hamirpur School Committee, which is whimsical, and was actuated by malice. The functionaries of the school acting on the guise of the protection of Art. 30 of the Constitution have terminated the service of the petitioner which is per se mala fide. Conditions of service which ensures security of the teachers cannot be whimsically taken away by the authorities and the same is liable to scrutiny and such scrutiny is not violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 30(1) of the Constitution. The petitioner has prayed for quashing Annexure-1 the order of termination of his service and Annexure-2 relieving him from the school in question.

(3.) A return has been filed by opposite parties 4 and 5. It has been stated in the counter-affidavit that the authorities of the school never disobeyed any order of this Court and they have no knowledge of any contempt application pending for such disobedience. The order passed in O.J.C. No. 3831/90 and 3832/90 were the subject-matter in Civil Reviews Nos. 49 and 50 of 1991. The averments made in the writ application that the termination of service of the petitioner was actuated by malice and is outcome of the pending of writ applications have been denied. Their specific stand is that the petitioner was appointed by the opposite parties as an Assistant Teacher vide its letter dated 20-1-90. He was temporarily appointed up to 31-3-1991 as per Annexure A/4. At the time of his appointment an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the Secretary of the Catholic School Committee. As per the agreement, for re-appointment and continuity of service petitioner was to apply in writing to the management through the head of the staff at least one month prior to the expiry of the date and petitioner applied to the authorities prior to 31-3-1991 for renewal of his appointment. Basing on which authorities had issued order of appointment dated 30-3-91 extending the service of the petitioner for one year, i.e. up to 31-3-92. In the second appointment letter it was clarified that the terms and conditions of the first appointment remained effective so far as the second appointment is concerned. The petitioner accepted this appointment letter which is annexed as C/4. As required under the agreement, the petitioner did not apply expressing his desire to continue service beyond 31-3-92 for which as the term expired on 31-3-92 the order of termination as per Annexure-I was issued. The opposite parties have specifically denied the allegation that the service of the petitioner was terminated as the petitioner was an active member of the Teachers' Association. In para-12 of the counter-affidavit it has been asserted that the post which the petitioner was holding has been filled up by promotion and transfer and one Miss Lucy Kujur from Jhorabahal Girls' H. E. School has joined the post on 1-7-92. The appointment letter in favour of Miss Lucy Kujur has been annexed as Annexure-E/4 to the counter-affidavit. The further stand of the opposite parties 4 and 5 is that no aid has yet been released in favour of the school, management is undergoing financial crisis and is not able to pay the emoluments of the staff of the school. The school in question was established and is managed by the minority community basing on religion and is therefore entitled to the protection of Art. 30(1) of the Constitution.