Lt. Col (Retd.) B.B. Singh vs Lt. Governor, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi ...
2001 Latest Caselaw 287 Del

ORDER

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1. Challenge is made in this writ petition to the letter dated 15.2.1999 whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that the post of Bursar stands abolished pursuant to the resolution of the Managing Committee of the School. The petitioner was appointed by the Managing Committee of the School to the post of Bursar after he stood voluntarily retired from the defense service. It is alleged in the petition that as the petitioner brought certain irregularities of the School to the notice of the Director of Education, as a measure of vengeance the respondent school took a decision to abolish the post of Bursar and thereafter decided to terminate the services of the petitioner. It is alleged in the petition that the order of termination of the services of the petitioner from the school was with a malafide object of getting rid of him as he was felt to be an obstacle in the illegal actions and designs of respondents 2, 4 & 5. The legality of the said order is challenged in this writ petition with a further prayed that the petitioner should be directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.

2. The counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent school contending inter alia that after the appointment of the petitioner and while he was serving as a Bursar in the School the Managing Committee considered the issue as to whether the post of Bursar should be retained in the school or not and a resolution was adopted by the Managing Committee unanimously on 16.5.1997 deciding to abolish the post of Bursar. A reference was made to the Directorate with regard to the aforesaid decision of the Managing Committee to abolish the post of Bursar pursuant to which a communication was received from the Directorate of Education under letter dated 26.11.1998 intimating the respondent school that the said post of Bursar does not exist in the unpaid recognised schools of Delhi as per norms of Delhi Schools Education Rules, 1973. On receipt of the aforesaid communication the matter was again placed before the Managing Committee in its meeting dated 5.2.1999 wherein the earlier resolution of the Managing Committee dated 12.2.1997 was ratified and a final decision was taken that the post of Bursar stands abolished. Accordingly, the aforesaid letter dated 15.2.1999 was issued to the petitioner communicating to him the aforesaid resolution of the Managing Committee and also intimating him that in view of the said position the services of the petitioner stand terminated with immediate effect.

3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties in the light of the aforesaid for the parties in the light of the aforesaid facts and records of the case. It was contended by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated without obtaining prior approval of the Directorate of Education and since in the present case such termination was made without obtaining prior approval of the Directorate of Education there is violation of the provisions of section 8 of Delhi School Education Act. Counsel also sought to rely upon the Affiliation Bye-Laws of the Central Board of Secondary Education and particularly to bye-law 29 which provides that the Managing Committee shall also be competent to terminate the services of a confirmed employee only in case of abolition of a post due to closing down of school/a class or reduction in the number of sections of a class or discontinuance of a teaching subject by giving three months notice in writing or three months salary including all allowances.

According to the counsel the aforesaid procedure for termination of services due to abolition of post was not followed in this case and therefore, the said over was liable to be set aside and quashed. It is also submitted that when the aforesaid resolution was passed by the Managing Committee on 5.2.1999 the two representatives of the teachers were not present in the meeting in which the resolution was sought to have been passed, although it is shown in the resolution that they were present. According to the counsel nothing was discussed about the termination of the services of the petitioner in the Managing Committee meeting held on 5.2.1999 as was stated by two representatives of the teachers who were members of the Managing Committee. He submitted that the action is malafide, for the action was taken as a vengeance as the petitioner had brought to the notice of the Director of Education various irregularities committed by the School and the termination is a result of such vengeance on the part of the school authority.

4. Let me proceed to scrutinise the aforesaid contentions made on behalf of the petitioner one by one. The resolutions of the Managing Committee dated 16.5.1997 and 5.2.1999 have been placed before me for my perusal. I have perused the same. The said minutes disclose that the representation of the petitioner with regard to administrative mal-functioning of the school was placed before the Managing Committee which was considered and the Managing Committee made observations to the effect that the post of Bursar be abolished as the post is superfluous. The Managing Committee also took notice of the Contention of the petitioner before the Lt. Governor dated 12.2.1997 wherein the petitioner contended that the appointment of Bursar is void ab initio. Pursuant to the said decision, an application was filed before the Directorate of Education for according approval for dispensing with the services of the petitioner is the capacity as Bursar. In response to the said letter sent on 26.11.1998, the Director informed the respondent school that the said post of Bursar does not exist in the unpaid recognised schools of Delhi as per norms of Delhi School Education Rules. The matter was placed before the Managing Committee with the aforesaid communication received from the Directorate of Education in its meeting held on 5.2.1999 wherein the earlier resolution dated 12.2.1997 was ratified and the post of Bursar was abolished. The aforesaid communication received from the Directorate of Education would therefore, conclusively establish that the post of Bursar is not a recognised post for the unpaid recognised schools of Delhi. Therefore, no approval of any nature of the Directorate of Education is necessary either for abolition of the said post or for termination of the services of a person who is working on the said post.

5. The petitioner was a confirmed officer in the post of Bursar but when a decision is taken to abolish a particular post no grievance could be made for termination of services even of a confirmed employees particularly when the post stands abolished from the school, which is also not a recognised cadre post under the Delhi School Educations Rules, 1973. Even the stand of the petitioner in the representation submitted before the Lt. Governor was that the appointment to the post of Bursar is void ab initio. The original records containing the resolution of the Managing Committee have been placed before me. The same disclosed that the two teachers' representatives, namely, Shri G.S. Gulati and Shri N.R. Prasher, were present in the meeting held on 16.5.1997 and therefore, the said decision was taken in the presence of the said representatives of the Teachers' council. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the said termination of services was in violation of the bye-laws of the Central Board of Secondary Education also cannot be accepted for, in my considered opinion the provisions of the said Bye-Laws of the Central Board of Secondary Education are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, for the respondent school was governed by the provisions of Delhi School Education Act and Rules and resolutions framed there under. It is only when such Act, Rules and Regulations of the State or Union Territory do not exist that the aforesaid bye-laws relied upon by the petitioner could be applicable.

6. The petitioner also had raised contention on the ground of malafide. It is true that the petitioner submitted certain representations before the Lt. Governor and other authorities bringing out certain alleged mal-functioning of the respondent school. It transpires from the records that the said allegations were enquired into by the competent authority and on completion of the investigation/enquiry the aforesaid allegations were found to be baseless and a clean chit was issued regarding administrative functions of the school. Therefore, the allegations against the school regarding mal-functioning are without any basis. It was also submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that after termination of his services a post of senior Accountant was advertised by the respondent school and a person has been appointed to the said post and therefore, the stand taken by the respondent that the post of Bursar is unnecessary is only an eye wash to do away with the services of the petitioner. The records placed before me would also indicate that a post of Accountant was advertised by the respondent school subsequent to the termination of services of the petitioner. But nothing is stated in the writ petition indicating the nature of functions discharged by the petitioner as a Bursar and the functions to be discharged by a senior Accountant. No pleading is available on record to indicate that the post of Accountant would also involve the same functions as that of a Bursar. It that view of the matter, in absence of proper pleadings and particulars, it cannot be held that the action of the respondent in abolishing the post of Bursar and thereafter terminating the services of the petitioner is malafide and that it is an eye wash to do away with the services of the petitioner. The respondent/School is an unaided recognised school of Delhi and in such a school the post of Bursar does not exist and therefore, the Managing Committee has the prerogative either to have the said post or not to have it at all.

7. In that view of the matter, I find no infirmity in the action taken by the respondent. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. There will however, be no orders as to costs.