SURENDRA JHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) QUASHMENT of the Communication dated January, 6, 2003, issued by the Secretary, Managing Committee of St. Xaviers School, Doranda, Ranchi conveying the decision of the Managing Committee to retain the retirement age of teachers at 58 years is sought, in this writ application. Further daections are sought to prohibit the implementation of the decision of retirement at the age of 58 years and also to fix the retirement age of the petitioner and employees of the St. Xaviers School at 60 years in tune with the prevailing law for the Government servants in the State of Jharkhand.

(2.) PETITIONER is a teacher in the St. Xaviers School, Doranda, The School is being managed and run by the Society through its Governing body. It is in unaided private school affiliated with the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations (I.C.S.E.). The School is also a member of All Bihar Christian School Association (in short ALBICSA). It is averred in the writ petition that service conditions of the Teachers and other staff of the School are governed and regulated by a tripartite agreement entered into between the Governing body, Teachers and Representatives of the School on 02nd of December, 1998. It is alleged that the agreement contains stipulations for amendment of the service conditions in accordance with the law framed for the Government employees. According to the petitioner, an amendment to the bye -laws of the School was introduced by the Governing body in April, 2002 but the same has not been given effect to in line with the bye -laws in vogue in schools under ALBICSA, This is despite an assurance extended by the Management of the School to the teachers by letter dated 01st of December, 2001 (Annexure -4). Petitioners have also stated that regulations of Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations to which the School is affiliated imposed an obligation upon the Governing body/Management of the School to adopt same conditions of employment as are applicable to the Government employees. It is further stated that Bihar Government enhanced the age of retirement of Teachers, who were due to retire on 31st October, 1999 or thereafter from 58 years to 60 years. This decision of the Government was notified by memo No. 2412 dated 29th of October, 1990 issued by the Finance Department of the State of Bihar. It is further mentioned that even the State of Jharkhand has adopted the decision vide Circular No. 1055 dated 05th of September, 2001. It is alleged that the decision of the Management to retain the age of the Teachers of the School at 58 years is contrary to the Tripartite Agreement dated 02nd of December, 1998, the bye -laws of ALBICSA of which the School is a member as also the regulations/norms of the I.C.S.E., the affiliating body. Petitioner claims to have made some representations alongwith other teachers of the School. Petitioner has, accordingly, sought various reliefs noticed in the preceding paras by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Management of the School represented by Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 has filed disclaimer to the writ petition. During the pendency of this writ application, some of the employees of the School including teaching and non -teaching staff filed IA No 1574 of 2006 seeking intervention on the ground that they are also entitled to the relief as claimed by the writ petitioner and any order passed by this Court is likely to affect their rights. These applicants had also approached the Tribunal, namely, Jharkhand Educational Tribunal seeking relief for enhancement of age and other prayers made therein. However, the Tribunal has refused to intervene by its order dated 19th of May, 2006 on the ground that similar issue is pending before the Jharkhand High Court. This LA. was allowed on consideration by this Court vide order dated 4th of July, 2006 and interveners were heard in the writ petition.

(3.) THOUGH no specific plea has been raised by the Respondents, regarding the maintainability of the petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, however keeping in view the factual averment made in the reply that the School is run by a registered society and is an unaided private School, both the parties were heard on the question of maintainability of the writ petition and the right of the petitioner/interveners to invoke jurisdiction of this Count under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.