This judgment dismisses a writ petition filed by school employees challenging the withdrawal of a school's recognition and their subsequent discharge. The court held that due to the Management's inability to run the school and the failure to hold elections, the Administrator's recommendation and the order were justified.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No. 9400 of 2009
DATE OF DECISION : 06.07.2009
Arvind Jassal and others
.... PETITIONERS
Versus
The State of Haryana and others
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr. Naresh K. Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioners.
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.
The petitioners were regular employees of S.D. High School, Kalka. They were working against Grant-in-Aid sanctioned posts. The S.D. High School, Kalka, was being run by the Management of the Sanatan Dharam Sabha, Kalka. In spite of receiving the Grant-in-Aid from the Government, Management of the S.D. High School was not in a position to pay salary to its employees. Consequently, various employees of the said school filed writ petition in this Court. Under the orders of this Court, the District Education Officer, Panchkula, was appointed as Administrator on 28.2.2005. With the efforts of the Administrator and the Court, salary of the employees of the College was paid upto 2006. The Administrator has completed three years tenure on 28.2.2008. As per provision of Section 10
CWP No. 9400 of 2009
-2-
of the Haryana School Education Act, 1995 and Rule 32 (5) (iii) of the Haryana School Education Rules, 2003, as amended Rules 2007, an Administrator cannot continue after three years.
In view of the aforesaid fact, the Administrator fixed the date of holding election of the Managing Committee of the S.D. High School, Kalka. On the request of the President of the school, the departmental nominee was sent for election, which was to be held on 27.4.2008. On that day, neither the Member nor the President came for election, due to which the election was post-poned for 11.5.2008. On 11.5.2008, again, the officials, members and President of the Managing Committee did not come present for election, due to which the election could not be held. It was also noticed by the Administrator that the Managing Committee is also running another school in the name of S.D. Public School, Kalka and they were not interested in taking over the Management of the S.D. High School. In view of these facts, the Administrator recommended to the Government to withdraw the recognition as well as Grant-in-Aid of the S.D. High School, Kalka. Upon the said recommendation, the Commissioner & Director General School Education, Haryana, issued a show cause notice to the office bearers of the Management for withdrawal of the recognition under Section 43 (1) of the Haryana School Education Rules, 2003. The Management, the President and the office bearers of the Management did not file any reply to the said show cause notice. Ultimately, the Commissioner and Director General School Education, Haryana, vide its
CWP No. 9400 of 2009 -3-
order dated 17.6.2009 withdrew the recognition of the S.D. High School, Kalka, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Rule 43 (1) and (2) of the Haryana School Education Rules, 2003 and directed that the teachers and employees working in the school may be discharged from their duties with immediate effect. However, it has been ordered that the retiral benefits available to the staff, as admissible under the Haryana Aided Schools (Special Pension and Contributory Provident Fund) Rules, 2001 will be released to them, as per their entitlement. The Grant-in-Aid of the S.D. High School, Kalka was also placed under suspension under Rule 62 (1) of the Haryana School Education Rules, 2003. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioners have been discharged from their duties with immediate effect. This order has been challenged by them by way of this petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that in view of Rule 32 (5) of the Haryana School Education Rules, 2003, it was the duty of the Administrator to take the necessary steps to constitute the Managing Committee, but in the present case, the Administrator, without taking such necessary steps, recommended for withdrawal of recognition and Grant-inAid of the S.D. High School. He further argued that respondent No.1, without considering the fundamental right of the petitioners to livelihood, has passed the impugned order, in pursuance of the petitioners have been discharged from their duties.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in the instant petition. It emerges from the aforesaid facts that the Managing
CWP No. 9400 of 2009 -4-
Committee of the S.D. High School was not in a position to run the school, which was going in losses. Therefore, they were not in a position to pay salary of the employees. In that situation, the Administrator was appointed for three years. The Administrator made his best efforts to conduct the election of the Managing Committee, but due to the non-cooperative attitude of the members of the S.D. High School and the previous Managing Committee, the elections could not be held. The Administrator was also not in a position to run the school and to pay salary of the employees. In these circumstances, he made recommendation to the Commissioner & Director General School Education, Haryana, to withdraw the recognition as well as Grant-in-Aid of the School. The Commissioner & Director General School Education, Haryana, after giving notice to the office bearers of the Management, passed the order of withdrawal of recognition and suspension of the Grant-in-Aid of the School. In pursuance of that order, the petitioners were discharged from their duties. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the respondents were fully justified to withdraw the recognition and Grant-in-Aid of the School and to pass the impugned order of discharging the petitioners from their duties. However, the retiral benefits to the staff, as admissible, has been ordered to be released to them, as per their entitlement. Thus, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order.
Dismissed.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE
July 06, 2009 ndj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order withdrawing recognition and Grant-in-Aid of the school and discharging the employees was justified.
Whether the Administrator fulfilled his duty to constitute the Managing Committee before recommending withdrawal of recognition.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Arvind Jassal and others
The State of Haryana
Satish Kumar Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
