CHAIRMAN, ARMY SCHOOL Vs. ANAMIKA SAXENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge who set aside the decision of the Tribunal which had been approached by the respondent a teacher, under Sec. 21 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act').

(2.) Briefly, the respondent-teacher was employed on contractual basis by the appellant. Similar teachers were appointed by the appellant on purely contractual basis. She had approached the Tribunal for some relief. During the pendency of her application, the period stipulated in the contract of her employment ended. Taking a cue from this, the appellant-employer contended that she could not maintain the application under Sec. 21 of the Act because she ceased to be an employee and there was no question of change in the terms of her employment or change in the terms and conditions of the contract. This contention was accepted by the Tribunal.

(3.) The teacher approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution with two-fold complaints i.e. firstly, that the rejection of the application at the threshold was not in accordance with law, and secondly, that the appellants wished to replace her with another set of contractual employees. The appellants-employer resisted the writ petition contending that under Sec. 21, jurisdiction of the Tribunal was not attracted and that an individual had voluntary accepted certain terms which included limited term employment and it was not open to the teacher to challenge the end of her tenure. The learned Single Judge however, rejected these contentions holding that a conjoint reading of Ss. 19 and 21 of the Act would indicate that the Legislature intended these provisions to be interpreted broadly rather than narrowly, as was successfully contended by the appellant.