Juri Barman vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 3336 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Juri Barman vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 20 February, 2025

Author: Michael Zothankhuma

Bench: Michael Zothankhuma

                                                                  Page No.# 1/9

GAHC010007492023




                                                           undefined

                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                        Case No. : WP(C)/247/2023

         JURI BARMAN
         C/O- SRI GAUTAM BARMAN, R/O- FAUJDARI PATH, P.S. SADAR, NAGAON,
         ASSAM



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
         REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION
         DEPTT. (SECONDARY), DISPUR, GHY-06, ASSAM

         2:THE DIRECTOR
          SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPTT.
          KAHILIPARA
          GHY-19
         ASSAM

         3:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS
          NAGAON DISTRICT CIRCLE
          NAGAON
         ASSAM

         4:THE SCHOOL MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
          HAIBARGAON HIGH SCHOOL
          NAGAON- 782002
         ASSAM

         5:THE HEADMASTER
          HAIBARGAON HIGH SCHOOL
          NAGAON- 782002
         ASSA
                                                                          Page No.# 2/9

                                        BEFORE
                     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA


For the petitioner              : Mr. D.S. Deka.       ..... Advocate.



For the respondents nos.1,2 & 3 : Mr. N.J. Khataniar   ... Advocate.

For the respondent no.5         : Ms. A. Hussain       ... Advocate.




Date of hearing                  : 04.02.2025

Date of Judgment                : 20.02.2025



                          JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

1. Heard Mr. D.S. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N.J. Khataniar, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2 & 3. Ms. A. Hussain, learned counsel appears for the respondent no.5.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal letter dated 25.06.2020 issued by the Headmaster of the Haibargaon High School, terminating the contractual engagement of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner had been engaged by the School Management Committee of the Haibargaon High School on 10.06.2010 on contractual basis. The petitioner's case is that the her contractual appointment was terminated in view of being absent from the school w.e.f. 01.07.2019 to 25.06.2020. The petitioner's further case is that the though the Page No.# 3/9

petitioner's contract period was to expire in July, 2020, the contractual service of the petitioner had been terminated on 25.06.2020, without any notice being issued to the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel thus prays that the impugned dismissal order dated 25.06.2020 issued by the respondent No.4 should be set aside and the petitioner should be reinstated into service.

4. Ms. A. Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 submits that though the petitioner had made applications for Child Care Leave w.e.f. 01.09.2018 to 31.12.2018 and 01.08.2019 to 31.03.2020, the same had not been granted to the petitioner. Despite the above, the petitioner had taken unauthorized leave. She also submits that as the contractual engagement of the petitioner had expired, the present writ petition should be dismissed, as the petitioner cannot be reinstated into service, after the expiry of her engagement/contractual period.

5. Ms. A. Hussain further submits that while the petitioner's contractual service had been terminated on 25.06.2020, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition only on 10.01.2023, i.e. after more than 2½ years of her dismissal order. As such, the writ petition is hit by delay and laches. She also submits that the dismissal letter dated 25.06.2020 was issued by the School Management and Development Committee after a thorough discussion, wherein it was discussed that the petitioner had played with the future of the students of the School by remaining absent. Further, despite giving time to the petitioner to continue her service, she continued to remain unauthorisedly absent thereby jeopardizing the careers of the students of the School further.

6. Mr. N.J. Khataniar, learned counsel for the State respondents submits that Page No.# 4/9

as per the contract agreement executed between the parties, the School Management Committee had the power to terminate the petitioner's contractual service, if the petitioner did not adhere to the terms and conditions of the contract. As the petitioner had been dismissed from service by deliberately remaining absent, the petitioner's service was rightly terminated. Further, the engagement/appointment of the petitioner as an Additional Teacher had been made by the School Management Committee and no challenge could be made to the termination order by way of this writ petition.

7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

8. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition is to set aside the impugned dismissal order dated 25.06.2020 issued by the respondent no.4, terminating the service of the petitioner and to reinstate the petitioner as an Additional Mathematic Teacher in the Haibargaon High School.

9. The facts of the case, as submitted by the learned counsels for the parties and the pleadings, show that though the petitioner had applied for Child Care Leave for 4 months in the year 2018, the same had not been granted by the respondents. The petitioner thereafter applied for Child Care Leave again from 01.08.2019 to 31.03.2020, i.e. for a period of 8 months. However, the same was also not granted by the respondents. Despite leave not being granted, the petitioner took unauthorized leave and remained absent from the school, till

issuance of the dismissal order dated 25.06.2020, which was issued on the 11th month of the absence of the petitioner.

Page No.# 5/9

10. Clause 5 & 9 of the contractual agreement executed between the parties provides as follows:-

"5. The services of the Party shall stand automatically terminated at the

expiry of the contact period, without any necessity of the School giving any notice or notice pay to the Party and without any liability on part of the School to pay any retrenchment or other compensation or other amounts to the Party.

9. Notwithstanding anything contained hereinabove the services of the Party may be terminated at any time by the SMC if the Party is found to be guilty of any insubordination, intemperance or other misconduct or of any breach or non performance, it being clearly understood that the School shall always invoke this clause in consultation with the President of the SMC."

11. The dismissal letter dated 25.06.2020 issued by the Head Master of the School is reproduced herein below as follows:-

"(i) That it has been reported to the I/S, NDC Nagaon on dated 21/08/2019 regarding your misconduct of service allegedly committed by you failing to exercise due care and attention in the performance of your school duty.

(ii) That you willfully left the school and remained absent negligently since October, 2018 without any information or any leave grant by the competent authority which is total violation of rule of service.

(iii) That in view of the gravity of the alleged misconduct, School Management and Development Committee (SMDC) after a thorough discussion it has been decided to dismiss your service from Haiborgaon High School as a Contractual Teacher as you have been appointed by the SMDC of Haiborgaon High School.

Page No.# 6/9

(iv) That you are most irregular and inattentive in your duty since your joining in this school and you have so many complain regarding your teaching.

(v) That you have violated all the terms and conditions of service rule and regarding this I several times tried to make communication with you but due to lack of your proper address I was not in a position to do so and failed to communicated with you.

In view of the above facts and circumstances and violation of contractual service rules the SMDC disappointed upon you and finding no alternative has taken the final decision to dismiss you. So, you are hereby DISMISS from contractual service from Haiborgaon High school, Nagaon".

12. The fact of the case clearly shows that the petitioner's application for grant of Child Care Leave had not been granted on two occasions. One for 4 months in the year 2018 and one for 8 months starting from 01.08.2019 to 31.03.2020. Though the State respondents should ordinarily have granted Child Care Leave, the same not having been done, the petitioner could not have taken unauthorized leave in total defiance of the decision of the respondents. It has been clearly laid down by the Supreme Court in various decisions, one of which is State of Punjab -vs- P.L.Singla reported in 2000 (8) SCC 469 that unauthorized absence is an act of indiscipline and misconduct.

13. This Court in Ajoy Kumar Haloi Vs. State of Assam & Others, reported in (2014) 3 GLT 420 held that irrespective of the question as to whether the termination of the services of the petitioner is illegal or not, the core question to be determined is whether the writ petition is overtaken by time Page No.# 7/9

and has, ipso facto, becomes infructuous. This Court further held that the period of engagement of a contractual employee cannot be extended by the Court, as the legitimate function of the State respondents cannot be usurped if there was any breach of contract in the termination of the service of the petitioner, it may give rise to a cause of action for damages/compensation, for which the remedy available is a civil suit and not a writ petition.

14. In the case of GRIDCO Ltd. & anr. Vs. Sadananda Doloi & Ors reported in (2011) 15 SCC 16, the Apex Court has held that though a writ Court is entitled to judicially review the action and determine whether there was any illegality, perversity, unreasonableness, unfairness or irrationality with respect to termination of a contractual engagement, judicial review cannot extend to acting as an appellate authority sitting in judgment over the decision. The Court cannot sit in the armchair of the administrator to decide whether a more reasonable decision or course of action could have been taken in the circumstances. So long as the action taken by the authority is not shown to be vitiated by illegality, perversity, unreasonableness, unfairness or irrationality and so long as the action is not demonstrably in outrageous defiance of logic, the writ Court would do well to respect the decision under challenge.

15. In the case of Prabhu Nath Pandey & Ors. Vs- Union of India reported in 2000 1 GLT, 470, this Court has held that a contract of employment cannot ordinarily be interfered against an employer and the remedy is to sue for damages.

Page No.# 8/9

16. In the case of U.P. State Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs. Suresh Kumar, reported in (2011) 15 SCC 180, the Supreme Court has held that no relief for extension of the engagement period beyond the contract period can be given by Tribunal or the High Court, as the engagement period was for a fixed period.

17. Clause-9 of the contract agreement executed between the parties' shows that the service of the petitioner can be terminated at any time, if the contractual employee is found to be guilty of insubordination or other misconduct or any breach or non-performance. As the action of the respondents in terminating the service/ contractual engagement of the petitioner has been made in terms of the contractual agreement, executed by the parties, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the termination of the petitioner's contractual service. In any event, the petitioner has put to challenge the impugned termination order dated 25.06.2020, after more and 2 ½ years, i.e. only on 10.01.2023. As such, the present petition is hit by laches and delay.

18. The facts in the present case show that the petitioner's contractual engagement period had ended in July, 2020 and that he had been dismissed from service one month prior to his contractual engagement period being over. In terms of the judgment of this Court in Ajoy Kumar Haloi (supra) and the judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs. Suresh Kumar (supra) no relief for extension of his contractual period beyond July, 2020 can be granted by this Court. It is also apparent from the facts of the case that the petitioner's unauthorized absence was an act of indiscipline and misconduct. Further, there being a provision for terminating the contractual engagement of an employee in the contract agreement executed between the Page No.# 9/9

parties, this Court not being an Appellate Authority over the decision of the respondent authorities, the dismissal order of the petitioner is not being interfered with, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in GRIDCO Ltd. & anr. Vs. Sadananda Doloi (supra), especially when the facts clearly show that the petitioner had been unauthorizedly absent. Further there is nothing to show that the impugned action of the State respondents was unreasonable or irrational

19. In view of the fact that the petitioner's contractual engagement period ended in July, 2020, the prayer of the petitioner to extend his contract period beyond July 2020 cannot be granted, in terms of the various decisions quoted above. In the event, the petitioner is of the view that the he is entitled to be given his legitimate dues for his remaining contractual engagement period, the petitioner is always at liberty to approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance.

20. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any reason to exercise its discretion in the present case. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant