Dismissed

Shagufta Bano v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2020WRIA/46700/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a teacher's termination for refusing to work at her appointed school and instead joining the District Minorities Welfare Officer's office. The Court held that since the petitioner neither performed duties at the school nor participated in the enquiry, no extraordinary jurisdiction was warranted.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shagufta Bano Vs State of U.P. and Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 46700 of 2002

¶4

Petitioner :- Shagufta Bano Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jai Prakash Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., A.K. Trivedi

¶5

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Jai Prakash Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State of U.P.

¶7

This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed against order dated 07.10.2002 passed by Management of Madarsa Babulim Mubarakpur, Azamgarh (hereinafter referred to as “School”) terminating petitioner on the ground that she was not working in School and got herself attached with office of District Minorities Welfare Officer, Azamgarh (hereinafter referred to as “DMWO”) on her own application and despite repeated call and information given by Management of School, she refused to visit School on the pretext of said attachment.

¶8

Facts disclosed in present writ petition shows that petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in School on 02.02.1982. School in question is admittedly a Minority Institution for imparting education from Class-I to VIII which is registered and recognized by Minorities Welfare Department of State of U.P. and governed by the provisions of U.P. Ashaskeeya Arbi Tatha Farsi Madarson Ki Manyata Niyamawali, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1987”). Petitioner moved an application before DMWO that she is being harassed by Principal of School and asked to impart education in boys' school though it is difficult to her to impart education in boys' school whereupon DMWO vide letter dated 06.05.2000 directed Principal of School to allow petitioner to discharge her duties in the School in question where she was already imparting education to students.

¶9

¶10

Thereafter, petitioner made a representation dated 06.02.2001 before Joint Director/ Deputy Director, Minorities Welfare Department against Management of School stating that they are threatening her and thus she be attached with any office of Authorities in District, Azamgarh. Thereupon, Joint Director passed order dated 20.02.2001 which reads as under:-

¶11

**Mh0,e0MCyw0vks0] vktex<+

¶12

d`rs vius dk;kZy; esa lEcU/k djds dk;kZy; dk;Z lEiUu djkosaA**

¶13

“DMWO, Azamgarh

¶14

Please contact your office and get the official work done.”

¶15

(English Translation by Court) 5. Pursuant thereto, DMWO issued letter dated 28.02.2001/03.03.2001 directing to attach petitioner in his office and also clarified that salary of petitioner shall be paid as earlier paid to her.

¶16

Thereafter, Management made all efforts to bring petitioner to work in the School alleging that petitioner was appointed to impart education to students of School and should come to School for discharge her duties but she did not turn up and got herself attached with office of DMWO. Moreover, she filed Writ Petition No. 26866 of 2001 before this Court against Management of School wherein this Court passed order dated 23.07.2001 granting interim relief, as under:

¶17

“Standing Counsel appears for the respondents no. 1 to 4. Issue notice to respondent no. 5 by registered post.

¶18

All the respondents are allowed one month's time to file counter affidavit.

¶19

With regard to the f unctioning of the petitioner the status quo as existing today shall be continued for a period of two months .

¶20

List thereafter.”

¶21

(Emphasis Added)

¶22

Aforesaid writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 10.01.2019.

¶23

¶24

Since petitioner was not coming to School for discharging her duties to impart education to students of School, Management initiated departmental enquiry in which charge-sheet dated 18.04.2001 was issued to petitioner which was replied by her vide letter dated 24.04.2001 stating that she is continuously working in the office of DMWO and, therefore, it cannot be said that she is absent from duty of School. Manager also issued a show-cause notice dated 08.05.2001 which was again replied by her vide letter dated 22.05.2001.

¶25

Thereafter, Joint Director himself issued a letter dated 29.01.2002 directing DMWO to relieve petitioner so as to allow her to join in School since education to students is suffering adversely but she was not relieved by DMWO as she took shelter under interim order dated 23.07.2001 passed in Writ A No. 26866 of 2001.

¶26

Ultimately, holding charge of non-working in School proved, impugned order of termination has been passed.

¶27

During course of argument, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that exparte enquiry was conducted but when questioned, could not dispute that petitioner never visited School after joining in the office of DMWO pursuant to letter dated 28.02.2001/03.03.2001 issued by DMWO, despite repeated calls by Management and also did not appear before Inquiry Officer. In these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that enquiry conducted against petitioner is exparte or illegal.

¶28

Moreover, when this Court asked from counsel for petitioner to show any provision under which petitioner as Teacher of a private school could have been allowed to work in the office of DMWO, no provision could be shown by him. It appears that in the present case, Authorities like Joint Director as well as DMWO also acted illegally in allowing petitioner to join office of DMWO and thereby prevented School of her services, causing loss of education to students of School. Petitioner was an employee of School and could not have

¶29

¶30

been asked to join office of DMWO. This action was clearly collusive between petitioner and said Authorities and patently illegal.

¶31

Be that as it may, since petitioner did not discharge her duties at the place where she was appointed i.e. School and also did not participate in enquiry, I do not find any reason, particularly looking to the conduct of petitioner, to exercise my extraordinary equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

¶32

Writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶33

Order Date :- 4.2.2020 Siddhant Sahu

Shagufta Bano v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shagufta Bano v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishwajeet Vs State of U.P. and Others

Pramod Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Deptt. of Secondary Edu. and Others

Rohitas Vs Executive Officer Nagar Panchayat Auraiya and Others

Ram Sewak Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Nagar Vikas Lucknow and Others

Jamshed Ali Vs State of U.P. and Others

Vatan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others