Mahesh Chand Vs. State of U.P. and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
service - employment on ad hoc basis - appointment of petitioner was on temporary basis as assistant engineer in p.w.d. for one year or until duly selected candidates are not available- service terminated - held, since the petitioner's appointment was temporary and time bound no action can be taken against termination as he has no right to the post. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction 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 namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. therefore, the term such board will have to mean a divisional board of or the level of divisional board or the state board. the divisional board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. the state board advises the state government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. the cantonment board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other board or body under the cantonments act discharging any such duties. the duties of the cantonment board are laid down in section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. the cantonment board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. therefore, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. that being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the act. for the reasons state above, the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - however, the chief engineer sent a letter to the engineer-in-chief on 31.8.1997 recommending the petitioner's dismissal and also recommended that the executive engineer may be suspended vide annexure-8 to the writ petition.m. katju, j. 1. this writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorarito quash the order dated 12.2.1998, annexure-12 to the writ petition.2. we have heard the learned counsel for the parties.3. an advertisement was issued inviting applications for special selection to the post of ad hoc assistant engineer (civil/mechanical/ electrical) from amongst the scheduled caste/scheduled tribe vide advertisement dated 23.10.1994. annexure-1 to the writ petition. a selection committee consisting of several senior officers held interview of the eligible qualified candidates and thereafter vide order dated 8.2.1995, order of appointment was issued to the successful candidate whereby 132 s.c./s.t. candidates including the petitioner were appointed as ad hoc assistant engineers in p.w.d. for one year or till the availability of duly selected candidates through the u. p. public service commission, whichever is earlier. true copy of the appointment order along with the list of successful candidates is annexure-2 to the writ petition. the petitioner is at serial no. 64 in that list. this appointment was extended for one year by order dated 7.2.1996 and for another year by order dated 6.2.1997 vide annexures-3 and 4 to the writ petition.4. it is stated in paragraph 8 of the writ petition that the petitioner was posted in district chamoli after his appointment and sri p.l. verma was the executive engineer. the petitioner fell 111 and he went on leave after giving application dated 12.6.1997 to the executive engineer and left the head quarter after obtaining the verbal permission from the executive engineer and proceeded to his home town ghazibad for medical test. true copy of the leave application is annexure-5 to the writ petition. the petitioner remained 111 for more than two months and he applied for extension of his leave as stated in paragraph 11 to the writ petition and he submitted a medical certificate dated 15.8.1997 which was countersigned by the chief medical superintendent, ghaziabad hospital.he resumed duty on 19.8.1997. in paragraph 12 of the writ petition, it is stated that sri p. l. verma. executive engineer, p.w.d., chamoli, was prejudiced against the petitioner and hence, he filed an f.i.r. against the petitioner vide annexure-6 to the writ petition. in this f.i.r., the petitioner was charged with the allegation that the imprest money given to him was not fully adjusted and he has embezzled the money. the petitioner made a representation to the executive engineer against the action taken against the petitioner and also made representation to the superintendent engineer who made a query from the executive engineer. the executive engineer in response wrote in his letter dated 29.9.1997 to the superintendent engineer that all the imprest money was duly accounted and adjusted by him vide annexure-7 to the writ petition. however, the chief engineer sent a letter to the engineer-in-chief on 31.8.1997 recommending the petitioner's dismissal and also recommended that the executive engineer may be suspended vide annexure-8 to the writ petition. the petitioner was then transferred to gopeshwar. the petitioner made a series of representations to the higher authorities and the superintending engineer wrote a letter dated 30.12.1997 to the chief engineer with regard to the temporary imprest issued by sri p. l. verma, the then executive engineer. true copy of the letter dated 30.12.1997 is annexure-9a to the writ petition. however, the petitioner's service was terminated when he received the letter dated 4.2.1998 in which he was informed that his service was not required as he was appointed for one year as ad hoc assistant engineer, true copy of the letter dated 4.2.1998 is annexure-10 to the writ petition. it is alleged in paragraph 27 of the writ petition that the said order is punitive in nature and casts a stigma on the petitioner. it is alleged in paragraph 33 of the writ petition that the order was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.5. a counter-affidavit has been filed. in paragraph 4 of the same, it is stated that under special drive for filling up the vacancies of schedule castes and schedule tribes, ad hoc appointments were given to the assistant engineers with the condition that whenever duly selected assistant engineers come to join the appointment of the petitioner on ad hoc basis shall come to an end automatically. in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that all the posts of assistant engineers have been filled up by the duly selected candidates selected by the u. p. public service commission or by duly promoted assistant engineers. in paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that disciplinary proceedings are going on against sri p.l. verma in respect of irregularities committed by the petitioner who was working under the control of sri p. l. verma and in respect of sanction of leave, enquiry is being done. in paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that since the petitioner was absconding, the matter was enquired in respect of temporary imprest and the executive engineer sent the report to the superintending engineer stating the facts. true copy of the said letter is annexure-c.a.l to the counter-affidavit. in paragraph 12 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that sri p.l. verma, the then executive engineer and the petitioner were hand in glove in doing irregularities.6. a perusal of the impugned termination order dated 12.2.1998 shows that it is innocuous in nature. in our opinion, the said order does not cast any stigma on the petitioner. it only says that the petitioners service was not found satisfactory and hence it is no longer required. in our opinion, this does not cast any stigma on the petitioner. moreover, since the petitioners appointment was temporary and time bound hence he has no right to the post.7. the petition is dismissed.