M. Ranga Rao Vs. Apsrtc, Rep. by Its Managing Director and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase..........seeing a direction to the respondents to restore his name in the list of selected candidates and reinstate him into service.2. it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was selected on the basis of regular selection. his services were being utilized as a casual driver as and when required. the impugned notice was issued to him on 30-10-2001 asking him to report to duty on 5-11-2001, failing which his name will be deleted from the approved list of selected candidates. the petitioner contends that he did not receive that notice and later came to know that his name was deleted from the list of selected candidates. under the similar circumstances the division bench of this court gave a judgment on 29-8-2003 in writ appeal no. 1259 of 2003 upholding the order of the learned single judge who held that it is not permissible for the corporation to remove the name of the workman from the selected list, when the selection was made through a regularly constituted board. in the present case also if the corporation comes to a conclusion that non-reporting to duty as required under notice dated 30-10-2001 amounts to dereliction of duty the corporation is at liberty to initiate action.....

Judgment:

ORDER

G. Yethirajulu, J.

1. The petitioner is contending that he was appointed as a Driver in the Corporation in pursuance of a selection. After successful completion of training, he was allotted duties in February 1999. During the period of strike of the regular employees from 15-10-2001 to 7-11-2001, the petitioner was directed to report to duty, but, due to lack of information he did not report to duty. Subsequently when he reported to duty, he was informed that his name was deleted from the selection list without issuing charge sheet or show cause notice. The respondents passed an order on 30-11-2001 directing deletion of name of the petitioner from the approved list of selected candidates. Since the petitioner failed to report to duty to engage him as a daily wage driver, his name was deleted from the selection list. The petitioner, therefore, approached this court through this writ petition seeing a direction to the respondents to restore his name in the list of selected candidates and reinstate him into service.

2. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was selected on the basis of regular selection. His services were being utilized as a casual driver as and when required. The impugned notice was issued to him on 30-10-2001 asking him to report to duty on 5-11-2001, failing which his name will be deleted from the approved list of selected candidates. The petitioner contends that he did not receive that notice and later came to know that his name was deleted from the list of selected candidates. Under the similar circumstances the Division Bench of this Court gave a judgment on 29-8-2003 in Writ Appeal No. 1259 of 2003 upholding the order of the learned Single Judge who held that it is not permissible for the Corporation to remove the name of the workman from the selected list, when the selection was made through a regularly constituted board. In the present case also if the Corporation comes to a conclusion that non-reporting to duty as required under notice dated 30-10-2001 amounts to dereliction of duty the corporation is at liberty to initiate action against the petitioner and after a detailed inquiry may pass appropriate orders according to rules, but, without giving any opportunity removing the name of the petitioner from the list of selected candidates is against the principles of natural justice. The action of the respondents in removing the name of the petitioner from the list of selected candidates is arbitrary. Therefore, such action is liable to be corrected by directing the respondents to restore the name of the petitioner to the selection list.

3. In the light of the above circumstances, the action of the respondents in deleting the name of the petitioner from the list of selected candidates is quashed. The respondents are directed to restore the name of the petitioner into the list of selected candidates and continue to engage him as he used to be engaged previously till an action if any taken by the respondents for the absence of the petitioner in response to the notice dt. 30-10-2001 and the punishment if any going to be imposed.

4. With the above said observation, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.