LPA No.342 of 1987 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. LPA No.342 of 1987 Date of decision : April 15, 2009 Mohinder Partap Singh ....Appellant VERSUS Guru Nanak Khalsa High School ....Respondent 2. LPA No.343 of 1987 Bahadur Singh ...Appellant VERSUS Guru Nanak Khalsa High School ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. M.K. Tewari, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. M.L. Sachdeva, Advocate, for the respondent. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? HEMANT GUPTA, J. This order shall dispose of LPA No.342 & 343 of 1987 arising out of judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 23-2-1987 LPA No.342 of 1987 -2- in Civil Writ Petition No.3628 of 1986 and C.W.P. No.4288 of 1985 against the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 5-6-1986 and 20-8-1985 respectively. For the facility of reference, the facts are taken from LPA No.342 of 1987. The appellant herein was appointed as a Clerk by the Management of Guru Nanak Khalsa High School (hereinafter referred to as 'the Management') w.e.f. 26-3-1983. At the time of appointment, Director Public Instructions (Schools), Chandigarh Administration, was acting as a Receiver in proceedings under Section 145 of the Code or Criminal Procedure. The said proceedings were dropped on 30-4-1985. The management of the school was given back to its Managing Committee w.e.f. 1-5-1985. It is the case of the Management that the appointment of the appellant was co-terminus with the tenure of the Receiver but his appointment was extended for 89 days from 1-5-1985. Similar extensions were granted subsequently as well. The Management in its meeting held on 31-5-1986, decided to terminate the services of the appellant. Aggrieved against the decision of the Management to terminate the services, the appellant invoked the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh under Section 3(4) of the Punjab Aided Schools (Security of Service) Act 1969 as applicable to Chandigarh. It was a case of the appellant that he has been removed from service without complying with the provisions of Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Act and without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The learned Deputy Commissioner passed an order on 5-6-1986 whereby the LPA No.342 of 1987 -3- operation of the order of removal was stayed. It is the said order which was challenged by the Management in a writ petition. It was the stand of the Management in the writ petition that the school has been established and is administered by religious minority and is therefore entitled to protection under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner shall have no jurisdiction in respect of the employees engaged by such minority institution. The writ petition has been allowed by the learned Single Judge inter alia on the ground that it is a minority educational institution. It was held that the provisions of Sub-Section (2) (4) (5) and (6) of Section 4 are not applicable to minority institution. The learned Single Judge has returned that finding noticing the fact that the Management is receiving grant-in-aid to the extent of 95% of the salary payable by it. Aggrieved against the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been filed in which there is no interim order. The appellant has vehemently argued that the Management is not a minority institution and that even if it is a minority institution still the conditions of service of its employees can be regulated by statutory provisions. It was further argued that since the institution was receiving 95% grant-in-aid to meet the salary of its teaching staff, it is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, therefore, the protection under Article 30 of the Constitution is not available. It is also argued that the appellant was appointed against the substantive vacany and on probation, therefore, after the expiry LPA No.342 of 1987 -4- of probation period, his services cannot be terminated in summary manner. The procedure for inflicting punishment contemplated for regular employee needs to be complied with. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, we find that the writ petition was directed against an interim order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in an application filed under Section 3(4) of Punjab Aided Schools (Security of Service) Act 1969. Sub-Section (4) of Section 3 of the Act does not confer any power in the Deputy Commissioner to pass any interim order. In the absence of power to grant interim order, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner staying the order of removal cannot be said to be justified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund vs. Kartick Das, (1994) 4 SCC 225, has held the following:- " A careful reading of the above discloses that there is no power under the Act to grant any interim relief of (sic or) even an ad interim relief. Only a final relief could be granted. If the jurisdiction of the Forum to grant relief is confined to the four clauses mentioned under Section 14, it passes our comprehension as to how an interim injunction could ever be granted disregarding even the balance of convenience." In view of the said fact, we need not examine the question whether the Management is a minority institution within the meaning of Article 30 of the Constitution of India or the provisions of the Act are not applicable at this stage of the proceedings. While allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge, the matter is remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner to decide LPA No.342 of 1987 -5- the appeal on merits without being influenced by the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in respect of the Management being established and administered by a minority institution. It shall be open to the parties to raise such plea as may be available to them in law in support of their respective contentions before the Deputy Commissioner. Parties through counsels are directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh on 4-5-2009 for further proceedings in accordance with law. Records be sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh forthwith. (T.S. THAKUR) (HEMANT GUPTA) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE April 15, 2009 manju