THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, SHRI GURU GOBIND SINGH COLLEGE, SANGHERA Vs. THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES, NEW DELHI, AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Managing Committee, Shri Guru Gobind Singh College, Sanghera is the petitioner. It is aggrieved by the order dated Jan. 7, 2000, issued by the Director, National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, New Delhi. By this communication, the Principal of the College, run by the petitioner, was informed that during discussion he had been advised "to regularise the services of Shri Paramjeet Singh and to treat the interim period as leave etc., as per rules." It was further directed that a compliance report be submitted within 15 days, failing which "the Commission will be constrained to initiate action for stoppage of grants to the College in view of serious violation of safeguards provided to SC/STs under the Constitution." The petitioner alleges that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (in short to be referred as "the National Commission") has acted in utter disregard of the provisions of law and totally beyond its jurisdiction in issuing the aforesaid directions. It has been further stated that respondent No. 3 had been recruited as a part-time Lecturer on July 20,1997. Thereafter selection for regular appointment was made. He was appointed on Oct. 8,1998. He was placed on probation for a period of one year. While he was still on probation, his "work and conduct were found to be unsatisfactory." Thus, his services were terminated on March 30, 1999. The petitioner maintains that the action is in conformity with the provisions of the Punjab Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service of Employees) Act, 1974 (hereinafter to be referred as "1974 Act") and the rules framed thereunder. In view of these provisions, the petitioner maintains that respondent No. 3 could not have invoked the jurisdiction of the National Commission.

(2.) A written statement has been filed by respondent No.3, controverting the claim made by the petitioner. The petitioner has filed a replication, reiterating its claim. A short reply has also been filed by the National Commission, the second respondent. The petitioner has filed a replication thereto. Counsel for the parties have been heard.

(3.) Mr. Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the National Commission had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. The petitioner should have sought its remedy under the provisions of 1974 Act, if it had any Grievance. On the other hand, Mr. T.P Singh appearing for the third respondent, viz. the teacher, says that the petition filed by the said respondent before the National Commission may be deemed to have been withdrawn. The Court may grant liberty to the third respondent to approach the competent authority under the provisions of the 1974 Act and to show that he had been illegally removed from service which was in violation of the provisions of the 1974 Act and the rules. He further submits that keeping in view the fact that the third respondent had been pursuing his remedy before the National Commission, the delay in approaching the Authority under the 1974 Act may be condoned.