MUKAND LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the above three cases contain challenge to the orders passed by the authorities constituted under the Haryana School Education Act, 2003 and the relevant rules. CWP No.15442 of 2011 is as regards the so called termination of the 4th respondent, who was a Sanskrit teacher. CWP No.15769 of 2011 is as regards the JBT teacher and CWP No.15936 of 2011 is as regards the termination of a Social Science teacher.

(2.) The respective contentions urged by the Management against the decision of the authorities directing reinstatement are as follows. As regards the private respondent in CWP No.15442 of 2011, the contention is that through a rationalization scheme of determining the strength of the teachers admissible in relation to the number of students studying, the Commissioner and the Director General of School Education had informed all the District Education Officers through his letter dated 13.09.2007 with a copy marked to the Manager that 10 posts had been rendered surplus. As regards the private respondents in other two petitions, namely, CWP Nos.15769 and 15936 of 2011, the contention of the Management was that the respective teachers, who were arrayed as the private respondents were not doing any work but they were merely coming to the school to affix the signatures and were indulging in rebellious activities against the school. The Management would contend that they had served notices to the teachers warning them against improper conduct and to do work properly, failing which, they would be treated as having abandoned the service. The Management would refer to the communications sent to the Government as well apprising them about the misconduct on the part of the teachers.

(3.) When an order of termination was issued against Mr. Rajinder Singh, who is the private respondent in CWP No.15442 of 2011, the justification was that he had been rendered surplus, even as per the communication received from the Director and therefore, when the Government was not readjusting a teacher that had been rendered surplus, in the manner contemplated under Rule 59 of the Haryana School Education Rules, it shall be taken that the school shall not any longer be responsible for the payment of salary and the Government alone shall be liable for the salary. The termination order issued to him is merely an euphemism for an unemployable status of a surplus staff for which the Government shall bear the responsibility. Consequently, the contention is that the so called termination cannot be construed as a violation made under Section 8(2) of the Haryana School Education Act, 2003. As regards the teachers, whose respective termination is the subject in the remaining two petitions, the contention again is that a teacher, who abandoned the service, does not require to be terminated to secure sanction under Section 8(2). There is, therefore, no violation of the sections and the rules, in the manner found in the impugned orders. The Management would, therefore, seek for quashing of the orders passed by the authorities directing reinstatement of the respective teachers in service.