RAVISHANKAR DUBEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been preferred mainly against an order, passed by respondent No. 4 dated 22nd May, 2008, which is at Annexure 18 to the memo of petition, whereby, the services of the petitioner have been terminated, only on the ground that the petitioner has not got his Teachers Training from a recognized institution by the National Council for Teachers Education under the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act, 1993"), though the Act, 1993 came into force with effect from 1st July, 1995 and the petitioner got appointment on 28th April, 1995, as per Annexure 6 to the memo of petition, and the petitioner actually joined the services as a Teacher with effect from 2nd May, 1995 (Annexure 7 to the memo of petition). Both these dates are prior to coming into force the Act, 1993 and, therefore, the petitioner is challenging the termination order at Annexure 18 to the memo of petition.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner having obtained his Teachers Training on 16th August, 1994 (Annexure 2 series), applied for appointment to the post of a Teacher at C.P. Samittee Middle School, Jamshedpur, and, thereafter, the petitioner was interviewed and got appointment on 28th April, 1995 as a Teacher, as per Annexure 6 to the memo of petition. Thereafter, the petitioner actually joined his services on 2nd May, 1995 and the petitioner had been working as a Teacher from the said date with C.P. Samittee Middle School, Jamshedpur, till he is terminated vide order dated 22nd May, 2008. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that thereafter, the petitioner worked honestly, sincerely, diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents for several years and after more than one decade, the respondents have issued a notice as to why the services of the petitioner be not terminated, because the petitioner has not obtained Teachers Training from a recognized college under the Act, 1993 and, ultimately, the services of the petitioner have been terminated on 22nd May, 2008 vide order at Annexure 18 to the memo of petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision rendered by by this Court in the case of Kalpana Lodhiya v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., 2009 1 JLJR 348., and submitted that the very same type of termination letter of the same date i.e. 22nd May, 2008 was also given to one Smt. Kalpana Lodhiya, on the same very ground, and the matter has been decided by this Court in favour of that petitioner. The case of the present petitioner is alike the aforesaid petitioner, namely, Smt. Kalpana Lodhiya and, therefore, impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner is relying upon paragraph Nos. 6, 7, 9 and 10 of the aforesaid decision. It is, thus, submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has cleared Teachers Training prior to enforcement of the Act, 1993 and likewise, the petitioner has also been selected as a Teacher prior to enforcement of the Act, 1993 and has actually joined the services also as a Teacher prior to enforcement of the Act, 1993. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the reason given by respondent No. 4 in the termination order of the petitioner, which is at Annexure 18 to the memo of petition, is no reason at all, in the eyes of law, and, thus, the termination order at Annexure 18 to the petition deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner ought to be permitted to continue as a Teacher in C.P. Samittee Middle School, Jamshedpur.