Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:11938-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 171 of 2025 Smt. Nandini Mandelkar Wd/o Late Ratnakar Govindrao Mandelkar, aged about 63 years at present R/o Shrivilla, Pragyapuram Colony, Guraiya Road, Ward No. 40, Chhindwara, Tahsil and District- Chhindwara (M.P.) versus ... Appellant 1 - Director of Public Instruction Lok Shikshan Sanchanalaya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Central Board of Secondary Education, Through Secretary, Shiksha Kendra 2 Community Centre, Preet Vihar, Delhi 110092 3 - The Aditya Birla Public School, Through Its Principal Grasim Vihar, Village- Rawan, Baloda Bazar, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal and Mr. Varun Sharma, For respondent No.1/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate Advocates
Legal Reasoning
assisted by Mr. Rahul Ambast and Ms. Hiya Sonchhatra, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 11 . 03 .202 5 ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Date: 2025.03.12 10:19:08 +0530 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Agrawal and Mr. Varun Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned 2 Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State / respondent No.1 and Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rahul Ambast and Ms. Hiya Sonchhatra, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.3 / writ petitioner. 2. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act,
Decision
2006, the appellant, who was respondent No.2 in the writ petition has challenged the order dated 27.06.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Single Judge in WP(S) No.3880 of 2021 and order dated 07.01.2025 (Annexure A-2) in Review Application No.160 of 2024, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.3 was allowed and the review application filed by appellant / respondent No.2 therein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 21.06.1997 the appellant was appointed as a primary teacher on probation. On 01.11.2002, he was upgraded from a teacher of the Primary School to a Trained Graduate Teacher with a probation period of one year i.e. up to 01.11.2003. Since the performance of appellant was unsatisfactory, the probation period was again extended for a period of six months from 01.11.2003 to 01.05.2004 vide order dated 06.01.2004. The probation period was again extended for one year from 01.05.2004 to 01.05.2005. Vide letters dated 14.07.1998 and 09.04.2002, memos were 3 issued to the appellant to improve teaching/professional skills. On 06.01.2004, again a memo was served upon the appellant on similar lines. Ultimately, the services of appellant were discontinued vide order dated 07.05.2005. The appellant filed a Writ Petition No. 2392 of 2005 and the same was withdrawn vide order dated 09.04.2009 with liberty to take recourse to law. Thereafter, the appellant filed an appeal before respondent No. 1/Director of Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, Raipur which was registered as an Appeal No.88/2009. Vide order dated 22.02.2011, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal preferred by the appellant on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the appellant while passing the order of removal from services. The writ petitioner / respondent No.3 herein has challenged the order dated 22.02.2011 by filing WPS No. 3880 of 2011. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 27.06.2024 and quashed the order impugned dated 22.02.2011 passed by the respondent No. 1/Director of Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. The appellant has filed REVP No. 160 of 2024 challenging the order dated 27.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge. The said review petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the appellant was appointed to the post of Primary Teacher at Delhi Public School, Grasim Vihar, Village Rawan, 4 District Raipur vide order dated 03.06.1997 on probation. He would contend that the services of the appellant were confirmed by the respondent authorities. Later on, the school was taken over by Aditya Birla Company Ltd, wherein the appellant was promoted to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher on probation vide order dated 01.12.2002. He submitted that without conducting any inquiry contrary to the bylaws of the CBSE, the services of the appellant were terminated. He further argued that the order dated 07.05.2005 passed by respondent No.3 was punitive and stigmatic as there are allegations that the teaching skills of the appellant were not up to the mark. He further submitted that containing such stigmatic words in the order dated 07.05.2005 would render futile exercise for the appellant to get any employment in any other educational Institutions therefore, the Appellate Authority i.e. respondent No.1 has rightly allowed the appeal preferred by appellant. He submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate fact that the reply filed by the respondent No.3 itself contained the admission of the respondent No.3 that the services of the appellant were confirmed on 15.06.1999, but still the appellant’s services have been terminated on false grounds. Thus, the learned learned Single Judge ought not to have rejected the case of the appellant on the face of the admitted document itself supported with an affidavit of the respondent itself. The appellant thus being confirmed employee was required to be dealt departmentally and the 5 opportunity of hearing was mandatory. He also argued that Section 9(2) of the Chhattisgarh Ashaskiya School Viniyaman Adhiniyam, 1976 puts a bar on the management of a private school like the respondent No.3 to remove or reduce the rank of any employee and the services of the appellant has been terminated without following any due procedure of law. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the learned Single Judge, after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly allowed the writ petition, in which no interference is called for. He further submitted that the appellant was initially appointed on 21.06.1997 to the post of Primary Teacher on probation and the services of the appellant were confirmed on 15.06.1999 thereafter, she was further appointed to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher 01.11.2002 with a probation period of one year i.e. up to 01.11.2003. Since the performance of appellant was unsatisfactory, the probation period was again extended for a period of six months from 01.11.2003 to 01.05.2004 vide order dated 06.01.2004. The probation period was again extended for one year from 01.05.2004 to 01.05.2005. He also submitted that vide letters dated 14.07.1998 and 09.04.2002, memos were issued to appellant to improve teaching/professional skills. On 06.01.2004, again a memo was served upon the appellant on similar lines. 6 Ultimately, the services of appellant were discontinued vide order dated 07.05.2005. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 7. From perusal of the impugned order and the materials available on record, it transpires that the appellant was initially appointed on 21.06.1997 to the post of Primary Teacher on probation and during the said probation period, though a memo dated 14.07.1998 was issued to appellant to improve teaching/professional skills, but the services of the appellant were confirmed on 15.06.1999. Later on, she was further appointed to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher 01.11.2002 with a probation period of one year i.e. up to 01.11.2003. Since the performance of appellant was unsatisfactory, a memo dated 09.04.2002 was again issued to improve teaching/professional skills and the probation period was again extended for a period of six months from 01.11.2003 to 01.05.2004 vide order dated 06.01.2004. On 06.01.2004, again a memo was served upon the appellant on similar lines and the probation period was again extended for one year from 01.05.2004 to 01.05.2005. Ultimately, the services of appellant were discontinued vide order dated 07.05.2005. A bare reading of the order of discontinuation of services, it is apparent that there was an allegation against the appellant with regard to her teaching. It is a trite law that if an employee fails to improve his behavior, conduct and discharge of work after giving him 7 opportunity to improve his/her teaching/professional skills, removal of that employee on such a ground would not a stigmatic and punitive. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.3 herein and dismissing the review petition filed by the appellant herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra