DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA SAMITI SHILLONG Vs. HEMRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ jurisdiction of this Court has been sought to be invoked to set at naught the judgment and order dated 08.02.2010, rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Guwahati (for short hereafter referred to as the Tribunal), in Original Application No. 173/2008. Thereby, the learned Tribunal sustained the impugnment of the decision of the petitioners herein to terminate the service of the respondent/applicant as Post Graduate Teacher (History) in the Navodaya Vidyalaya (for short hereinafter referred to as the Vidyalaya/Institution). We have heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Senior Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. SP Roy, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The respondent's/applicant's pleaded case before the learned Tribunal, in short, was that on being appointed as Post Graduate Teacher (History) (for short referred to as the PGT) in the Vidyalaya vide letter No. F.2-7/2001-NVS(SHR/Pers/2522, dated 21.8.06, he joined the service on 13.09.06. The appointment letter in clear terms disclosed that he would be initially on probation for a period of 2 years from the date of his joining, which was extendable further at the discretion of the competent authority. Clause 2 of the appointment letter recited as well that failure to complete the period of probation to the satisfaction of the competent authority would render him liable to be discharged from service. That during the period of probation his service could be dispensed with without assigning any reason was also underlined.

(3.) Though, according to the respondent/applicant, he was discharging his duties with utmost sincerity and honesty, he was, by the memorandum dated 02.08.2007, issued by the Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, (petitioner No. 1 herein and respondent No. 4 in the original application) asked to show cause as to why action would not be initiated against him for poor performance of the students in Social Studies and History in Class X and Class XII of the Institution during the year 2006-2007. The respondent, by his letter dated 02.08.2007 submitted his explanation, inter alia, pointing out that the result of the Institution in these subjects in the Board examination were, in fact, better than in the earlier occasions and that he on his part had taken extra classes for result oriented education and had endeavoured to improve the educational level of the students in History. He also catalogued the reasons for the results not to be at par with that at the national level, including his unfavourable health condition and poor academic level of the students. According to him, though, the winter vacation of the Vidyalaya started from 16.12.2007 up to 15.01.2008, as per the instruction of the Principal he took extra classes w.e.f. 22.12.2007, whereafter, he visited his native village in connection with his marriage to be solemnized on 18.01.2008. As the Institution was to re-open on 15.01.2008, he telephonically informed the Principal, seeking leave on and from 16.01.2008 to 25.01.2008. He claimed that a registered letter carrying the same request had also been addressed to the Principal of the Vidyalaya. He, thereafter joined the Institution on 28.01.2008 and, while he was rendering his services, was served with a memorandum No.NVW-363/PF/HEM/2007-08/1448, dated 06.02.2008, alleging that on the same date at about 1.10 p.m. the students of Class XI-Humanities were found outside the classroom and on being inquired, they disclosed that then was the History period and that the teacher had not attended the class. The memorandum imputed that when the applicant was confronted with this, he had casually replied that he had forgotten about the class while correcting the notebooks.