Miss.Shobha Bhure And ANR. v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1233 of 2001 Order reserved on 28.06.2017 Order delivered on 07.07.2017

1. Miss Shobha Bhure D/o. Late Shri Ramdev Rao Bhure, aged about 44 years, Head Master, Shaheed Veer Narayan Singh Primary and Middle School, Ramnagar, Muktidham, Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg (Chhattisgarh).

2. Smt. Susheela Lilhare W/o. Shri Madanlal Lilhare, aged about 36 years, Assistant Teacher, Shaheed Veer Narayan Singh Primary School, Ramnagar, Muktidham, Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg (Chhattisgarh).

---Petitioners

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, School Education Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Secretariat, D. K. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

2. District Education Officer, Durg, District Durg (Chhattisgarh).

3. Bajrang Bal Mandir and Shaheed Veer Narayan Singh Primaray/Middle School Managing Committee, Bajrang Bal Mandir Samiti (Registration No. 5946, dated 05.10.1977) Ramnagar, Bhilai, District Durg (Chhattisgarh). ---Respondents For petitioners : Mr. V. G. Tamaskar, Advocate.

For respondents No.1& 2/State: Mr. Arun Sao, Dy. A.G. For respondent No.3 : Mr. Alok Bakshi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order [C.A.V.]

1. The petitioners herein have filed this writ petition calling in question legality, validity and correctness of order dated 30.04.2001 by which their services have been terminated by respondent No.3 herein.

2. Petitioners who are two in numbers have filed this writ petition stating inter alia that they were appointed on regular basis on the post of Head Master and Assistant Teacher, respectively, by Bajrang Bal Mandir/Shaheed Veer Narayan Singh Primary/Middle School by order dated 05.10.1997 and their services are governed by the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya School Viniyam Adhiniyam, 1975, but their services were terminated by common order dated 30.04.2001.

3. Return has been filed by respondent No.3 opposing the writ petition stating inter alia that the petitioners were never appointed on any regular post but they were engaged on honorarium basis and as such they were neither appointed on the post nor holding any post therefore, on dis-engagement if any, they are not entitled to maintain the instant writ petition.

4. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court Shri Ved Prakash Dewangan, Secretary, Bajrang Bal Mandir has filed his affidavit before this Court on 22.12.2014 stating that petitioner No.1 is still working in this school, whereas petitioner No.2 has continued to work in the school till April, 2012 and thereafter, she has stopped coming to the school without notice or communication to the school management. No counter affidavit to this affidavit has been filed by the petitioners.

5. Mr. V. G. Tamaskar, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the petitioners were appointed on regular basis by the respondent No.3, therefore, their services could not have been

terminated by respondent No.3, without any show cause notice, or a formal departmental enquiry or, without assigning any reason and, therefore, the impugned order of termination is liable to be set aside.

6. Mr. Alok Bakshi, learned counsel for respondent No.3, would submit that the petitioners were never appointed on regular basis on the post of Head Master/Assistant Teacher by respondent No.3, as they were engaged on payment of honorarium and as such, their disengagement cannot be challenged in the writ petition.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records and considered their rival submissions.

8. The question for consideration would be whether the petitioners were appointed on the regular post of Head Master/Assistant Teacher or they were engaged temporarily on honorarium basis.

9. In order to decide the said question, it would be appropriate to look into the appointment order issued to the petitioners which has been filed as Annexures P/1 to P/4 along with this writ petition. The typed copy of appointment letter issued to petitioner No.1 has been filed as Annexure P/1 in which she has been engaged as Head Mistress on honorarium basis i.e. 175/- per month. Likewise, vide Annexure P/3 ₹ she has been engaged from 01.07.2001 to 30.04.2002 on honorarium basis. Petitioner No.2 has also been engaged on the basis of honorarium which is clearly apparent from perusal of Annexures P/2

and P/4. There is no other document brought on record on behalf of petitioners to establish that they were appointed on the regular post in accordance with the rules, rather it is established on record that they were engaged temporarily on honorarium basis and by order dated 30.04.2002 they have been dis-engaged which is said to be the order of termination by the petitioners. The affidavit filed pursuant to the order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 would show that petitioner No.1 is still working in the school run by respondent No.3.

10. Since, the petitioners were never appointed on any regular post, on regular basis, and they were temporarily engaged on honorarium basis, their dis-engagement by order dated 30.04.2001 cannot be said to be the order of termination as they were not the holders of any regular post duly appointed in accordance with rules, therefore their dis-engagement cannot be said to be illegal, warranting interference by this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). However, it is made clear that this dismissal would not come in the way of petitioner No.1, if she is already working in the school.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge