Case Law Details
Provisions requiring prior approval before termination of service of an employee under Act of 1978 and Rules made thereunder are not applicable to minority Institution established under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.
1. Predominant issue that has cropped up for consideration is whether Section 6 (a) (iii) of the Act of 1978 and the Rules framed there under, particularly Rule 12(3) of the Rules of 1983 requiring approval from the Competent Authority before terminating the services of an employee is applicable to the petitioner/educational Institution established and administered by religious and linguistic minority under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India.
2. Petitioner-Institution i.e. Khalsa Education Society is a society registered under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1973”) and running a school in the name of “Khalsa Public School” and is a minority Institution within the meaning of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The respondent No.4 worked as Assistant Teacher in petitioner’s school was removed from service by order dated 12.7.1995 (Annexure P/4). She preferred an appeal before the respondent No.3/Appellate Authority i.e. District Education Officer, Raipur and the Appellate Authority/ District Education Officer by order dated 3.9.2011 (Annexure P/1) allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No. 4 and set aside the order of removal from service and directed reinstatement along with consequential benefits.
3. Feeling aggrieved against the above-stated order, the petitioner herein i.e. Khalsa Education Society has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order passed by the respondent No. 3 setting aside the order of removal of the respondent No.4 from the post of Assistant Teacher stating inter-alia that order passed by the District Education Officer, Raipur/Appellate Authority is unsustainable and bad in law as service of the respondent No.3 was governed by the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha (Anudan Ka Pradaya) Adhiniyam, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1978”) and the provisions contained in Section 6 (a) (iii) of the said Actrequiring prior approval of the competent authority before the termination has been held to be violative of Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India by a judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Siddhi Bala Bose Library Association and others v. State of M.P. and others 1 and as such, the order passed by the Appellate Authority allowing the appeal on the sole ground of absence of prior approval from competent authority is bad and unsustainable in law and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and order of the Appellate Authority deserves to be set aside.
4. Respondents No. 1 to 3 by filing return have supported the order of the Appellate Authority granting appeal in favour of the respondent No. 4.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
