DEVINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is for a direction against the respondents for allowing him to rejoin against a sanctioned post of a teacher with all consequential benefits w.e.f. 12.9.2009. The petitioner's grievance is founded on the fact that he had been working as a Sanskrit teacher against a sanction post in the fifth respondent school at Mustafabad Yamunanagar. The petitioner had responded to an advertisement in the post of Assistant Block Research Co-ordinator under the Haryana Prathmik Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad on deputation basis. The third respondent namely the State Project Director of the Parishad had sought for permission to the fifth respondent-School to relieve the petitioner and on being issued the No Objection Certificate the petitioner had joined the third respondent on 8.8.2005. On 7.9.2009 it appears that the third respondent had relieved the petitioner from deputation and he was asked to rejoin the school in his parent department "(sic). On reporting back at the school the petitioner would claim that he was not permitted to join and the fifth respondent-Management was making out a condition that if only he would not ask for 25% of the salary that obtains to the Management share of liability against 75% of liability to be borne by the State for the aided post, he would be allowed to join. The petitioner did not accept such a condition and therefore he was not permitted to join. There is particularly no document in writing showing that the fifth respondent had made such a demand but the petitioner would refer to the several communications which he had sent to the government complaining of the fifth respondent's refusal to allow for the petitioner to rejoin the school. It is also brought on record that the government itself issued notices to the School directing the Management to take the petitioner back but these directions had been flouted. The State Government has filed its objection virtually conceding to the petitioner's demand insofar as it states that the respondent school had not properly responded to the demands and even a show cause notice had been issued by the Director School Education Haryana to the Manager of the School on 13.7.2011 to explain why the government shall not take over the Management and appoint an administrator under Section 10(1) of the Haryana School Education Act, 1995 for flouting the state direction. This is in a way trying to exculpate themselves from the wrong attributed to the respondents generally by the petitioner and show it is the management of the School that has been preventing the petitioner from rejoining and the government itself had done everything to ensure that the directions were complied with.

(2.) The fifth respondent had filed a reply contending that at the relevant time when the petitioner was relieved, the Managing Committee was not itself functioning and the relieving order had been issued by the Principal who was not competent to relieve him. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fifth respondent would also point out that at the time when the petitioner was asked to be relieved they were only informed that the deputation period was for a period of one year and although the petitioner had joined as early as on 8.8.2005, he had not reported back at the School on the completion of one year, nor did the petitioner seek for extension of his period on deputation. Consequently, it must be taken that the petitioner had abandoned his employment with the School and therefore the fifth respondent cannot be made liable for demands contained in the writ petition.

(3.) It is an admitted case that the School is an approved aided school and the petitioner had been working as a teacher in a sanctioned post. It is a matter of record that the fifth respondent obtains 75% aid and the School is governed by the State enactments relating to administration, of aided schools that grants security of tenure to the employee and allows for scales admissible under the Act and the relevant rules. It is again a matter of record that the third respondent-Parishad has issued an order of appointment to the petitioner as ABRC, Bilaspur on deputation for a period of one year or till joining of a contractual employee whichever was earlier. A copy of this communication has been issued to the School through the Principal. Again the school has itself issued a letter to the Director on 23.7.2005 that it has no objection to relieve him for taking up the post of ABRC. A subsequent letter dated 8.8.2005 from the School through the Principal shows that he was relieved from duty on 8.8.2005.