Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
U.P.SHIKSHA & EDUCATION BOARD
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
RAJENDER PRASAD GUPTA
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/02/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 1336 1996 SCC (3) 598
JT 1996 (3) 378 1996 SCALE (2)908
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Heard counsel on both sides.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment
of the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench made on March
9, 1994 in Special Appeal No.36(SB) of 1993.
The respondent was appointed as an untrained teacher in
the proceedings dated May 5, 1964. He was given an
opportunity to undergo training on September 29, 1958, but
he did not avail of the opportunity. He was given another
opportunity on July 28, 1969, but he again did not avail of
the same. Since he had not availed of the opportunity, he
was not permitted to continue in service. Consequently, he
filed a civil suit which came to be transferred to the
service Tribunal which dismissed the petition. Then he moved
the High Court. The High Court by its impugned order has
held that termination without following the prescribed
procedure is illegal and consequently it directed
reinstatement of the respondent in the service with
consequential benefits. Thus this appeal by special leave.
It is contended by Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant, that the appointment was on temporary
basis and the candidate being untrained teacher, he was
required to undergo training; and when he failed to avail of
that opportunity, as per the policy of the Government the
appellant had no option except to discontinue the services
of the respondent. Consequently, he is not entitled to
remain in service from 1968.
It is stated by Mr. Garg, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent, that Government had extended the time for
the training but he has not been given opportunity. The
letter of appointment did not indicate that his service
would come to an end in accordance with the procedure.
Subsequent correspondence indicates that appropriate action
was to be taken against the respondent if he would not
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
undergo training. No such action has been taken as per
service rules. Since no action has been taken, the
termination of the respondent’s service following proper
procedure for not undergoing training, is illegal. The High
Court was, therefore, right in giving direction to the
appellant to reinstate the respondent in service
irrespective of the fulfillment of the condition of
training.
The respondent is an untrained teacher appointed by
order dated May 5, 1964 on a monthly pay of Rs.40/-. His
service were terminated without any notice. It is also an
admitted fact that opportunity was given to him to undergo
training but he did not avail of that opportunity on the
ground that he was bitten by dog. Under these circumstances
and the admitted position, the question is: whether the
respondent can continue in service without completing his
training and whether the appellant’s predecessor was
empowered to discontinue the services of the respondent?
It is true that letters have been issued by the
Government to give training facilities on executing a bond
but he did not avail of that opportunity and subsequently he
was directed to be continued on fixed pay of the untrained
teachers. That situation does not arise nor helps the
respondent for the reason that he was discontinued from
services since the year 1969. He was required to undergo
training as prescribed by the Government. Since he had not
undergone training, the letter discontinuing the services
cannot be said to be illegal. The High Court, therefore, was
wholly wrong in its finding that required procedure was to
be completed for discontinuance of untrained teachers’
service before service came to an end. .
Mr. Garg also relied upon the decision of this Court in
U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad and Anr. vs. Hari Deo Mani
Tripathi and Ors. [SLR Vol.87 (1993) 1-15]. In that case
though the respondents were untrained temporary teachers and
after they obtained training certificates in 1976 this Court
directed the appellants to fix seniority from the date of
obtaining training certificates. The ratio of this case has
no application to the facts of this case.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The writ petition
stands dismissed. No order as to costs.