rImevVatm193 584 46 CWPNo7107of2009etce d 1 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PU AND HARY AT CHANDIGAR DATE OF DECISION 1CWP Noe7107of2009 08 e4e2011 C 0 VERSUS State ofHaryana and 0 others I C9 2eCWPN0e1103of2010 e e I DrKrishna Z ePetfoner 2 VERSUS Ct State ofHaryana and others I 2 e e Z KumarMalik m 4 n Z VERSUS 1 State ofHaryana and others 1 tl 1 e e CORAM KOHLI 1 7 PRESENT Mr VishalMalik Advoca e Binajeet SinghAde MrSaqibAli Khan Advocate fOrPetitioners MrDS PatwaliaAdvocate Radhika 2014.04.25 15: 32 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 585 i3 CWPNoe7107of2009etCe 2 PermodKohli Je thesepetitionshavedistinctprayers fOrrederessaI of their gnevanceshowever there1S of questionsof law and thus thesepetitionsare being ofbythis common order Q The petitionersin all thesecases were of privateaided 0 lnstitutions Theseinstitutionshave beenestablishedbythe Societies and 0 I are beingrun by the Managing Bodies of such C5 SOCletles Petitioner namelyDrAnand SinghMalik was working I as Lecturerand hasbeenterminatedvideorderdated1332008 Annexure Z P 139 His revlsion petitionagainstthe orderof 2 terminationstandsrejected by the Education vide his order dated I 191020086AnnexureP59 L2 SimilarlypetitionerDr SurinderKumar Z Malik was workingas Principal the respondent no aCollege 111 and Hras m placedunder suspension vide order dated832008 lnnexureP19 and has 7 beenterminatedfrom serVlCe vide order dated2212010 Annexure Z R112 not Petitioner Ll DrlCrishna was also workingas Principal 111 the aided collegenamely Maharani Kishori Jat Kanya She was placed under suspensionVide order dated 832008 lnexure P havebeen initiatedlIl 6c respectof petitionerrishna by SSUUl she has the enquiryreportand the show cause notice All the petitioners have also challengedthe approval granted by the Governmentfor action againstthem in their replyhaveobjected to the ofthe wrlt petitionon the groundthat the Petitionershave efficacious remedyof 1 1 Radhika 2014.04.25 15: 32 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 586 C 1 CWPNo7107of2009etCe 1 3 in view ofthe ofHonble Supreme Courtin the case of TMA Pai Foundationand othersVS Stateof 200289SCC 4819and the notiflcation dated 892005 lssued by the GovemmentTechnical EducationDePent appellate forums 1 In TMA Pai Foundation Honble Court while r deali with the rightsof theteachersand other of theprivate 0 C40 tnstitutions made observationsl I C5 641n the case of educational instltutions I however we are of the opinionthat requinnga Z teaCheror a memberof the staff to go to a civil 2 COUrt for the purpose of seeking redressis not in I the interest of general education Disputes C1 betweenthe managementand the staff of educationalinstitutions must be decidedspeedily and without the excesslve lncurring of costs l t t would therefore be D aPPropnate that an 4 EducationalTribunalbe set up 111each Districtin a State O nable aggrievedteachersto Ole an 1 appea unless there alreadyexists such an educationalTribunal ln a State the objectbeing that the teacher should not suffer throughthe substantialcosts that anse becauseof the location of the Tribuna if the tribunals are limited in 1 number they can hold Slttingsin different districts to achieve this objective TI a Radhika 2014.04.25 15: 32 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 587 1 CWP No7107 of2009 etc 4 AS specializedtribunalis set up therightof filingthe appealwould lie before the District Judgeor Additional District Judge as notifled by the Govemment It will not be necessary for the institutlon to getpriorpermission or ex postfacto 1 approval of a governmental whiletaking aCtiOn againsta teacher or any other 0 0 employeeThe StateGovemmentshalldetermine I t5 ln consultation with the High Court the judicial I forum 111 which an aggrievedteacher can Ole an Z aPPealagainstthe decision of the management 2 conceming Q1 action or terminationof service I State of Haryanahas issued notification dated 892005 as a Z 1 1 consequence of the directionsissuedin the case of TMA Pai Foundation supra9The relevant notificationreadsas under 1E In Pursuanceto the dated30 102002 of the b 1 Honble Supreme Court of India ln TMA Pai Foundation and others VS State of Karnatka 620028 SCC 4819 1 l wherein the Honble Court has observed that for the redressal of grievancesof employeesof aidedlunaided technical institutionswho are subjected to punishment of termination of services a mechanism will have to be evolved by appropriatetribunalsThe right offilingappealswould lie beforethe district and sessions f t 1 judge or additional district and sessioll judgestill the 1 Radhika 2014.04.25 15: 32 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 588 4e CWP NoO107of2009 etc 5 tribunals are set up It is notifledthat the Districtand SessionJudges in the State of Haryana have been authorizedto hear the appealsof the of aidedlunaidedtechnical institutions againstdecisionof managementwithin their m jurisdictionby the Honble Punjab 8 HaryanaHigh r Court vide N023414GazlIIIXCl l dated 1082005 0 Ca Learned counsel for thepetitionershoweves Opposedthe contention I C5 of the leamed counsel for respondents in this regardWhile referring to the I Governmentnotiflcation it 1s arguedthat theseforumshave been created Z only 111 respectof of aidedlunaidedTechnical Institutions w whereasthe petitloners in thesepetitions fZ are not of technical I institutions Theywere workingas teachersand the lnstitutions are non Cl technical To meet this pleaMr Plia Iearnedcounsel has referred to a Z DivisionBench judgment ofthis Court in the case of SmtSuinanKaila VS StateofHvana and others CWP No528 of2006 decidedon 24772007 1Z wherein this very notification D was set up as a defence againstthe tl ofthe writ petitionIn the aforesaid case also thepetitioners were employeesof educationalinstitutionsThe Honble Division Bench the fact that the notificationcontainsreferenceonlyto technical V L institutions observedas underl 1 64ARer hearingthe counsel for the petitionerwe are of the opinionthat the directions of Honble Supreme Court in TMA Pai Foundation and others Vs State of Karnatakas case 6supra9 were that 1 Educational Tribunal be constituted in each 1 Radhika 2014.04.25 15: 32 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 589 1v CWP NoO107of2009 etc 6 District to rederessthe of thetechnical as well as non4echnical staff Hence the noti6cati0nwould be applicable to the nonetechnicalinstitutionsalso However we direct the to bring out a 1 for bringingthe non technical institutionsalso within the ambit of 0 0 notification dated 82005 SO that any appeal I l5 againstthe order of managementsof nonetechnical I institutionsmay alsobe filed beforethe concerned Z District and SessionsJudgetill such time an 2 EducationalTribunalis constitutedDirections are I also issuedto the responderStateto constitutea r EducationalTribunalin terms of the Z ln TMA Pai Foundationand others case QO This has attainedfinalityThus ln view ofthe directionsof 7 Z the Division Bench of this Court which create a bindingprecedentthe petltionershave remedyof filingappealbefOrethe concemed District 8 Sessions District and Sessions Judgeunder whose jurisdictionthe are situated 1 Petitioners have raised vanous other issues relatingto violation of 4 principleof natural justiceSince the StateGovernmenthas alreadycreated forum6s for redressalof such gnevances and Honble Division Bench has alreadyconsideredthis questionit would not be appropriate for this Court to go into other aspects These petitionsare accordinglydismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the constituted by i 1 Radhika 2014.04.25 15: 32 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 590 rve 6 of2009 etCe 7 notificationdated82005 in pursuanceofthe directionsofthis Coun dated 2472007 in CWP No8528 of 2006 The notiOcationsdo not provideany periodof limitation and thus the limitation will not come in the way ofthe petitionersEven it by any notication any period of limitation has been prescribedthe same shall stand condoned in view of the pendency of the wrtt petitionsThe petitioners are allowed four weeks tl to flle appeals beforethecompetent 0 0 Copyofthis order be placed on recordofeach concemed file I C5 I PERMOD KOHLI9 eJUDGE Z 08A02011 m MFK 1eJ Note2Whether to be reportedor not2YES I co O 5e 7h1411 17 Z 1 1 1 Radhika 2014.04.25 15: 32 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document