2019 (2) TMI 1961 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Petition Against School, Orders Reinstatement

MARWARI BALIKA VIDYALAYA Versus ASHA SRIVASTAVA & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that a writ petition against a private school receiving grant-in-aid was maintainable, citing precedents. It deemed the termination ... Maintainability of writ petition - private school receiving grant in aid to the extent of dearness allowance - reinstatement along with back wages - HELD THAT:- There is a clear pleading in the Writ Application that the approval was necessary, its denial in reply is evasive. No such approval had been obtained in the instant case. It is apparent that the Government has also pleaded in its reply that approval of appointment was made necessary considering the arbitrariness in the appointments which was prevailing, and once approval for appointment was necessary there is no doubt that approval for removal was also necessary, which was not obtained in the instant case. Relief of reinstatement and back wages - HELD THAT:- The approval of the concerned authorities was not obtained and stigmatic order of dismissal was passed in the most arbitrary manner. It is not in dispute that no departmental enquiry was held - In the case of Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India & Anr. [1984 (1) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT], the appellant was undergoing training as a probationer. On a particular day, all the trainees arrived late at the place wherein P.T./unarmed combat practice was to be conducted. An enquiry was initiated and the impugned order of discharge under Rule 12(b) of the IPS (Probation) Rules, 1954 on the ground of his unsuitability for being a member of the IPS. It was held that the order was punitive in nature which in absence of any proper enquiry. In the present case, the employee has served for five years before dismissal from the service by a stigmatic order, passed without holding an enquiry, we cannot entertain the submission raised by learned Senior counsel for the Appellant-School that back wages should be denied. The manner in which termination had been made was clearly arbitrary and the order was illegal and void and thus back wages should follow. Appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the writ petition against a private school receiving grant-in-aid.2. Legality of the termination order.3. Entitlement to reinstatement and back wages.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:The primary issue was whether a writ petition is maintainable against a private school receiving grant-in-aid. The Supreme Court held that the writ application was maintainable. It referred to the precedent set in *Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab & Ors.* and *Raj Kumar v. Director of Education & Ors.*, which established that writs could be issued against private bodies performing public duties. The Court emphasized that the duty imposed on the school must be judged by the obligation owed to the affected party, and the nature of the duty, not the form of the body, is relevant. The Court reiterated that mandamus could not be denied on the ground that the duty was not imposed by statute but could be based on charter, common law, custom, or contract.2. Legality of the Termination Order:The Court examined the legality of the termination order, noting that no departmental enquiry was conducted before the termination, which was a stigmatic and arbitrary dismissal. The Court highlighted that the approval of the concerned authorities was necessary for both appointment and removal, which was not obtained in this case. Citing *Raj Kumar v. Director of Education & Ors.*, the Court underscored that procedural safeguards were in place to prevent arbitrary or unreasonable termination. The Court found the termination order illegal and void due to the lack of required approval and the absence of a proper enquiry.3. Entitlement to Reinstatement and Back Wages:The Court upheld the Division Bench's decision to reinstate the respondent with back wages. It noted that the respondent had served for five years before the arbitrary and stigmatic dismissal. The Court referenced *Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India & Anr.*, where it was held that an order of discharge, if based on an alleged act of misconduct without proper enquiry, is punitive and invalid. Given the arbitrary nature of the termination and the lack of a departmental enquiry, the Court concluded that the respondent was entitled to back wages along with reinstatement.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal, affirming the Division Bench's decision to reinstate the respondent with full salary, allowances, and service benefits. The Court emphasized the importance of procedural safeguards and the necessity of approval from concerned authorities in termination cases, thereby ensuring fair treatment and adherence to principles of natural justice.