MD MUSTAQUE AHMED Vs. MANAGING COMMITTEE URDU HIGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case inter alia challenges the order of his termination/dismissal as per Annexure -12 and also the order of the Education Tribunal dt. 29.3.1993 in Appeal No. 15 of 1989 as unreasonable and illegal.

(2.) IN a nut shell, the relevant facts constituting the petitioner's case is that he was appointed as Head Maulabi in Urdu High School, Rourkela, a private recognised High School receiving grant -in -aid from the Government, vide the Appointment letter dt. 25.9.1973, i.e. Annexure -I. He continued to hold the post till the end of Summer Vacation, 1986 and after reopening on 5.7.1986 when the petitioner went to the School, the Headmaster of the School did not permit him to sign in the Attendance register and on such persuasion by the petitioner, the said Headmaster supplied him a copy of Annexure -12 i.e. a letter from the Secretary of the Managing Committee i.e. opp. party No. 1, in which it is indicated that the service of the petitioner was terminated with effect from 25.5.1986. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Inspector of Schools on 6.8.1986, but the decision, if any, on the said appeal petition was never communicated to him. Later, he wrote to the higher authorities. After a long wait, finding no alternative, he approached this Court by filing O.J.C. No. 853 of 1989 and at that time with the view that alternative remedy by way of appeal before the Education Tribunal was available, the aforesaid writ application was permitted to be withdrawn vide order dt. 28.6.1989. On 7.7.1989 Appeal No. 15 of 1989 was filed, but vide is order dt. 29.3.1993, i.e. Annexure -19, the State Education Tribunal dismissed his appeal on the ground that the Urdu High School, Rourkela was an institution belonging to minority community having the protection under Article 30 of the Constitution and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute. Thus, he has approached this Court in the present writ application invoking the jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2, the deponent (opposite party No. 1) has denied to all the, allegations. He has stated that the petitioner intentionally and deliberately mis -conducted himself and the punishment inflicted is due and proper. He has further stated that the petitioner avoided to attend the enquiry after due intimation and there is no violation of the principle of natural justice.