This judgment considers a writ petition challenging the termination of a contract teacher's services due to unauthorized absence. The bench upheld the termination, ruling that such absence for long periods neutralizes the school's education scheme and does not amount to arbitrary action.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
WRIT PETITION No. 9260 of 2013
ORDER:
The writ petitioner, a trained graduate teacher (Urdu), has been engaged, on a contractual basis, by the 1st respondent-society for teaching the boys admitted to the Andhra Pradesh Residential School (for minority boys) at Nagaram, Nizamabad. He has abstained from duty without intimation to the principal of the school, contrary to the conditions contained in the agreement entered into by him with the 1st respondent-society. However, when he made an attempt to resume duty, the principal of the school suggested to him to get the necessary clearance from the Secretary of the 1st respondent-society and when the petitioner called on the Secretary on 03.09.2012 and represented for permission to resume duty, a show cause notice was drawn against him by the 1st respondent-society on 13.09.2012 for his unauthorized absence from the duties in the school. Though the writ petitioner has submitted his explanation on 10.10.2012, based upon the report said to have been submitted by the principal of the school on 30.12.2012, the 1st respondent has passed the order of termination on 30.01.2013. Hence, this Writ Petition.
Heard Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
It is contended by Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao that when teachers to teach the Urdu medium students are in short supply, the impugned order of termination has been passed against the petitioner without
any regard to the above said fact. Further, if one takes ill, he cannot help but availing the leave of absence. The petitioner has explained clearly the reasons why he could not be present in the school. Without any regard being shown to the said fact, the impugned order of termination has been passed. Hence, the impugned order of termination deserves to be set aside by this Court.
Per contra, Sri K.Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel would contend that teachers are supposed to intimate the period of their absence to the principal concerned and to the Secretary of the 1st respondent-society, so as to make necessary alternative arrangements, otherwise the school schedule gets upset. Further, the scheme of imparting education designed by the 1st respondent-society will get completely neutralized by the unauthorized absence of any teacher. Therefore, the explanation of the writ petitioner was not at all satisfactory and hence, in accordance with the conditions stipulated in the contract of service, the service of the writ petitioner came to be terminated.
The services of a contract teacher are liable to be terminated for whatsoever reason. The fact remains that the writ petitioner did not function as a teacher for a considerable period of time. Such unauthorized absence for long spells, it is hardly in doubt, would completely neutralize the school education programme. Substitutes cannot be planned and secured suddenly. The whole scheme of education gets out of hand. In those set of circumstances, the action of the respondents in terminating the service of the writ petitioner, cannot be described as either arbitrary or whimsical.
But however, teachers, who are trained and capable of imparting
education to the children pursuing the same in Urdu medium, are in great short supply. Therefore, if there is any necessity to engage the services of a qualified Urdu teacher, the respondents are at liberty to utilize the services of the writ petitioner, without any regard for the fact that his contract of employment has already been terminated, by duly entering into another contract of employment.
The Writ Petition stands disposed of with this order. No costs.
Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand disposed of.
_____________________________ (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 01st April, 2013
siva/Ksld
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
WRIT PETITION No. 9260 of 2013
DATE: 01.04.2013
siva/Ksld
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the termination of a contract teacher for unauthorized absence was arbitrary or whimsical given the scarcity of qualified Urdu teachers?
Whether the Writ Petitioner's failure to intimate absence excused him under the conditions of his contract?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Writ Petitioner/Trained Graduate Teacher
Andhra Pradesh Residential School Society
NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
