Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajni Bansal And Another vs Guru Nanak Education Trust And ... on 11 May, 2021
213 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1) CWP-9907-2020 (O&M)
Date of decision: 11.05.2021
Rajni Bansal and another ...........Petitioners
versus
Guru Nanak Education Trust and others .......Respondents
2) CWP-9928-2020 (O&M)
Aarti Nayar and another ...........Petitioners
versus
Guru Nanak Education Trust and others .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH
Present: Mr. Samarth Sagar, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate
for respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate
for respondent No.4.
FATEH DEEP SINGH, J.
Due to outbreak of pandemic COVID-19, the instant case
is being taken up for hearing through video conferencing.
The above two detailed Civil Writ petitions, though by two
1 of 8
CWP-9907-2020 (O&M) & CWP-9928-2020 (O&M) -2-
different sets of petitioners, the first one by petitioner-Rajni Bansal
and Neeru Gulati and the second by Dr. Aarti Nayar and Dr.
Inderpreet Kaur, both under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of
India are seeking writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the
chargesheets and inquiry reports made by the respondents and on
account of similar facts and law points involved and for the sake of
brevity, are being disposed off together by this common judgment.
The petitioners, in both these petitions are employed with
respondent No.1-Guru Nanak Education Trust, Model Town,
Ludhiana in their college respondent No.3-Guru Nanak Girls College,
Model Town, Ludhiana (an Affiliated College), as Teachers/Lecturers
in different subjects and which are aided posts and are covered
under the Punjab Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service of
Employees), Act 1974 (in short "the Act"). It is during the course of
their employment, when the college teachers raised their voice
against the college authorities for "equal pay for equal work", College
authorities is alleged to have instituted administrative action to throw
out the petitioners as well as to overawe remaining teachers and,
thus, to intimidate and force them not to raise their demands. As a
sequel to this, the petitioners were issued chargesheets on different
dates followed by show cause notices purposing punishment of their
termination of service.
It is the case of the petitioners that as blatant misuse of
their authority and powers, the college authorities have set up
2 of 8
CWP-9907-2020 (O&M) & CWP-9928-2020 (O&M) -3-
inquiry officer to hold departmental inquiry against the
petitioners, who, on insufficient material and unjustified grounds, has
recommended action against the petitioners and, thereby, terminating
them of their services.
The unison stand of respondents No.1 to 3 is primarily
based on the statutory provisions that under Section 7A of the Act,
Educational Tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide and adjudicate the
dispute between the petitioners and the college management and the
Civil Court has no role to play in the same. The respondents No.1 to
3 have alleged that on account of illegal and unjustified demands of
the petitioners and their acts of misconduct, the college authorities
were forced to take administrative actions, as per law and, thus,
denied the averments made in the petition. Respondent No.4-Panjab
University, Chandigarh, has taken up similar plea of lack of
jurisdiction of the Civil Court in view of the statutory provisions. It is
reiterated that the college management can suspend an employee in
case of gross misconduct/moral turpitude. It is reiterated that the
order of suspension qua the petitioners, passed by the college
management had been stayed vide order dated 20.11.2019 of the
Registrar of Panjab University in terms of University Calendar
Volume I Regulation 9.2 Chapter VIII (E). The respondent No.4
shrugs off its responsibility qua the inter se dispute between the
Teachers and the management claiming that all the reliefs are being
sought by the petitioners against the college management and in
3 of 8
CWP-9907-2020 (O&M) & CWP-9928-2020 (O&M) -4-
which the University has no role to play and, thus, denied the
averments of the petition.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the records.
Mr. Samarth Sagar, Advocate for the petitioners has placed
reliance upon judgments passed in CWP No.10458 of 2020 titled as
'Sonu Munjal versus Director Public Instruction (Colleges) Punjab
and others', Civil Appeal No.5145 of 2006 titled as 'Union of India
and another versus Kunisetty Satyanarayana' (2006) 12 SCC 28,
Civil Appeal Nos.4041-42 of 2007 titled as 'MP State Agro Industries
Development Corporation Limited and Another versus Jahan Khan'
(2007) 10 SCC 88', Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2004 titled as 'Special
Director and another versus Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another'
(2004) 3 SCC 440, and CWP No.11022 of 2010 titled as 'Dr. Balvir
Chand Josan versus Chandigarh Administration U.T. Chandigarh and
others' to hammer home the point that in exceptional circumstances,
the Civil Court can interfere in the interest of justice claiming that the
Statute has to be construed in accordance with the intention of those
who make it and it is the duty of the Court to act upon intention of the
Legislature. It is asserted that the true intent of Legislature was to
provide the employees of the aided institution a platform to raise their
grievance and it was never the intent of the Statute to provide a
forum of Educational Tribunal. The same is controverted by Mr. K.S.
Dadwal, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 by citing judgments
passed in CR No.4315 of 2012 titled as 'Management of SD Model
4 of 8
CWP-9907-2020 (O&M) & CWP-9928-2020 (O&M) -5-
Senior Secondary School and another versus District Judge-cum-
Service Tribunal and another' 2014 (1) SCT 652, CWP No.25942 of
2012 titled as 'Suresh Sharma versus State of Punjab and anothers',
CWP No.10458 of 2020 titled as 'Sonu Munjal versus Director Public
Instruction (Colleges) Punjab and others', CWP No.12000 of 2020
titled as 'Praneet Jawanda versus Director Public Instruction
(Colleges) Punjab and others', Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2004 titled
as 'The Special Director and another versus Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse
and another' (2004) 1 SCT 671, Civil Appeal No.2206 of 2013 titled
as 'State of Orissa and others versus M/s MESCO Steels Limited
and another' 2013 (2) RCR Civil 318 and CWP No.6747 of 2012 titled
as 'Urmila Sorout versus State of Haryana and others' 2013 (1) SCT
598 and by Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate for respondent No.4 by
citing judgments passed in CWP No.10458 of 2020 titled as 'Sonu
Munjal versus Director Public Instruction (Colleges) Punjab and
others', to bring about the fact that repeatedly, this Court had held
that all service disputes arising out of an order by the management,
the Tribunal has the jurisdiction.
Appreciating the arguments of the two sides and without
feeling the necessity to further advert on to the merits of the case of
the two sides, lest it might prejudice their respective case, it needs to
be reiterated here that the Act was enacted to provide Security of
Service to the Employees of affiliated colleges. Affiliated college, as
per definition assigned in Section 2 (a) of the Act is defined as
5 of 8
CWP-9907-2020 (O&M) & CWP-9928-2020 (O&M) -6-
follows:-
(a) '"affiliated college" means a college
associated with and admitted to the
privileges of University constituted or
established under any law for the time being
in force but does not include a Government
college or college established or maintained
by such a University.'
and further Section 2 (aa) defines what is aided post
which is given as below:-
[(aa) '"aided post" means an aided post
on the establishment of an affiliated college
against which such a college gets grant-in-
aid from the State Government from time to
time.'
and, therefore, illustrates that it is something, for which, a
college gets grant-in-aide from the State Government from time to
time. Furthermore, Section 7A enlists the ambit of Educational
Tribunal and under which, the Educational Tribunal, by way of
Section 7A sub-Section (12) provides that the Educational Tribunal
shall have jurisdiction to hear all cases of dispute between the
"Managing Committees" and the "employee" as defined in this Act
and the Punjab Privately Managed Recognized Schools Employees
(Security of Service) Act, 1979. Furthermore, under Section 8,
jurisdiction of Civil Courts has been specifically barred.
6 of 8
CWP-9907-2020 (O&M) & CWP-9928-2020 (O&M) -7-
Reverting back to the instant case, it is an outcome of
disciplinary proceedings between the employees and the
management of the college, the instant petitions have come about
and, therefore, by virtue of Section 7A sub-Section (12) read with
Section 8 of the Act, jurisdiction of this Court is specifically barred.
Similar views had earlier been expressed by this Court in various
judgments which has been detailed above on behalf of the
respondents. Though, the petitions were filed long back ago and
have been continuing since long, after stay orders dated 16.07.2020
were passed by this Court in both the petitions at the initial hearing
and by virtue of which, the petitioners have since then, continued in
their jobs and so, was by virtue of letter issued by the Registrar,
Panjab University, Chandigarh, under provisions enshrined in
University Calendar Volume I Regulation 9.2 Chapter VIII (E). Thus,
the petitioners having continued on these jobs for such a long time, it
would be in the fitness of things and interest of justice that they be
allowed to carry on with their jobs as such, and the matter be
relegated to the Educational Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh, which
shall hear and dispose of these petitions, as per law. Since, the
pleadings are complete; this Court deems it expedient that files of
these petitions be accordingly sent to the Educational Tribunal, in a
sealed cover, after retaining one set of the pleadings for future
reference of this Court.
7 of 8
CWP-9907-2020 (O&M) & CWP-9928-2020 (O&M) -8-
Both the matters, as such, stand disposed off.
(FATEH DEEP SINGH)
11.05.2021 JUDGE
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
8 of 8
