HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH.BIl.ASPUR CORAM: Hon'bleShriRaieeVGuDta.C.J.& Hon'bleShri Sunil KUmarSinha.J. Writ ADpeal No. 203 of 2007 w^ SB^ Smt. Syman Unni 'v ' • Versus ;ii~, Mar Gregorious Memorial and others JUDGMENT For consjderation Hon'ble Shri Justi&e Raieev Gupta IL'.TIi;1 Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- CAitfJustice PostforJudgment :2-^03/2009 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge HIGH COURTOFCMHATTISGARH. BILASPUR 3^ CORAM: Hon'bleShri RaieevGuDta.C.J. & Hori'bleShri Sunil Kumar Sinha.J. APPELLANT PET1TIONER Writ Appeal No.203 of 2007 Smt. Suman Unni, aged about 40 years,W/o Shri ^. Unnikrishnan, R/o Qr.No. 6/E, Street-28. Sector-10, Bhilai, Dist. Durg (CG) V. RESPONDENTS 1. 2. 3. ersus Mar Gregorious Memorial, Senior Secondary School, Sector-6, Bhilai, Durg, CG. Central Board of Secondary Education, Preeti Vihar, Delhi. Appellate Authority under CG Shops Establishments Act, 1958 and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Durg,CG. (Writ ADDeal under Section 2 Sub-Section (llofthe Chhattisaarh MiaH Ccturt(ADDealt6DivisionBench)Act. 2006) ABpearance: Smt. Fouzia Mirza, counsel for the appellant Shri Vinod Deshmukh, counsel for respondent No.1 None for respondents No. 2 & 3. JUDGMENT (2^03.2009) R)llowing Judgmentof the Court was delivered by Sunil KuinarSinha. J. (1) Being aggrieved with the order dated 23 April, 2007 passed in •t . • •• ..' , - .: • Writ Petition (L) No. 1174, by the tearned Single.Judge of this Court, the appellant/petitioner hasfiledthiSWritAppeal. L.-1 :''. •[• • i :,, ^•-•i) •vasVf Writ Appeal No. 203 of2007 (2) The appellant was appointed oh the post of Tailoring Teacher in the year 1996 in Mar Gregorious MemorialSenior Secondary School. Vide order dated 4.8.1999, her serviceswere regularized on the postof Tailoring Teacher. In fact, it was a fresh appointment order after termination of her appointment on adhoc basis. This appointment was under certain conditions. Condition No. iv of the/appointment order dated 4.8.1999 (Annexure-P/1) reads as under: "Yourservices are ferminable by giving one month's \ notice or pay in lieu 6n either side without assigning any reason." Thereafter, the appellant was removed from the services'Iwith effect from 30.4.2004. It was challenged by the appellant before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, whopassedanorderdated 23.11.2004 and direeted the respondent school to reinstate the appellantwith 25% back wages. A Writ Petition was filed against the said order vide No. 4742/2004 which was later on withdrawn, and ultimately, the appellant was reinstated in servicesvide orderdated 1.12.2005 and shejoinedon 6.12.2005. (3) Thereafter, the services of the appellantwere terminated vide order dated 28.4.2006 by giving her notice pay and due salary in lieu of termination. This order wasalso impugned by the appellant before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Durg, in Appeal Case No. 45/2006, which was dismissed on 30.12.2006. It is after all this, the appellant/petitioner filed the instant Writ Appeal for quashment of the order of termination dated 28.4.2006. The order reads as under:- "M.G.M.SeniorSeconidarySchool (ENGLISHMEDIUM) ; (Affiliated to C.B.S.E.,New Delhi) Estd:1965 ^fA ^) Writ Aoneal No. 203 of 2007 Ref:/No. MGM/sss/Estt/2006/177 Smt. Suman Unni, W/o Shri Unnikrishnan, Tailoring Teacher, MGM Sr. Secondary School, Sector -6, Bhilai, Durg, C.G. S^eGtor-6, Bhilai-1 Distt. Durg, CG PIN 490 006 Date: 28.4.06 aai ai Bili BijSI SUB:- Termination ofService's. \ DearSmt. Unni, "-. You were appointed as Tailoring Teacher in MGM Sr. Secondary School, Bhilai. You are aware that forthe last 3-4 years no students are optingfor tailoring as a subject for which you had been appointed. Your services are therefore no longer required and is here by terminated as per Rule 29(2)af the bye-laws framed bythe CBSE, forthwith. A cheque bearirig no. 592386 dated 28/04/06 for 3 months salary amounting to Rs.12,816/- (Rupees twelve thousand eight hundredsixteen only) in Ijeu ofnotice period is enclosed herewith. So also cheque bearing no. 592387 dated 28/04/2006 for salary for the month 6f April 2006 including the salary for summer vacation from 01 -05-06 to 18-06-06 inallamounting t6 Rs.9,774/- (Rupees Nine thousand seven hundred seventy four only) is also enclosed herewith. Benefits on this account as per the practice followed by theschool, amounting to Rs. 15.034/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand thirty four only) is alsoenclosed with vide cheque bearing no.592388 dated 28/4/06. With bestwishes, For, M.G.M. Sr. Secondary School, (K.C. George) Hon. Correspondent" (4) The orcler was challenged.on account Of non^bservan o^^^ principles of natural justice, arbitrariness, malafie as also on the groundof nra tBI •ffll ^??Na lisg lill IIS y M iwa ^^7^7i^;^'-J^'^'^^^[^^^^ ^^f'^ & WritADriealNo.203 of 2007 Clause 29(2) of the C.B.S.E. Affiliation Bye Laws' 2004 (hereinafter referred to the Bye Laws' 2004). (5) Learned Single Judge, after going through the various provisions of the Bye Laws' 2004 held that the termination of theservices of the appellant/petitioner was in accordance with Bye Laws'. It was dispensed with on account of no longer rfequirement of Tailoring Teacher as there were nostudents in that particularXepartment and was affected after one month's notice as required under the statute and the appointment order, and the Writ Petition was dismissed. i (6) Smt. Fouzia Mirza, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, argued that uhless the post wasabolished, the management ought not to have removed the appellant from the services. She referred tothe provisions of Clause 29 ofthe Bye Laws' 2004. (7) On the other hand, Shri Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing on behalfof the respondent-School, opposed these arguments and supported the orderpassed bythe learned Single Judge. (8) We have heard the learned counsel forthe partiesat length ahd have also perusedthe records oftheWritAppeal. (9) The termination order dated 28.4.2006 clearly shows that the termination ofthe appellant was on the ground that since last 3-4 years no students were opting from tailoring as a subject for which the appellanVpetitionerwas appointed. It ison this ground, the manageraent took a decision that Her services were no Idnger required and it was terminated as per Clause 29(2) of the Bye Laws' 2004. TI Writ Aooeal No. 203 of2007 -0- (10) Clause 29 reads as follows:- "29. Termination of Service due to Abolition of Posts etc. 1. If an employee atany timeafter confirmation intends to resign he/she shallgive three months' notice in writing or three months' salary including all allowances to the Managing Committee. 2. The .Managing Committee shall.also be competent to terminate the services of a confirmed employee only in case of abolition of a post due toclosing down of school a class or reduction in thes number of sections of a class or discontinuance of a'.teaching subject by.giving three months notice in writing cy three months salary including all allowances. <\ 3. The ManagingCommittee shall have the power torelax the period 6f hotice or payment of salary in special circumstances." ! (11) Sub-Clause (2) of Clause 29 provides that the termination could be affected on account pf abolitionof a post due to closing down of school, a class or reduction in the number of sections of aclass or on accountof discontinuance of a teaching subject. In the present case, the appellant was appointed as a Tailoring Teacherand the case of themanagement is that nostudent had opted for tailoring subject since last 3-4 years. This position has not been controverted by the appellant/petitioner. Therefore, itamounts to discontinuanceof a teachingsubject, on which, the services of the appellant was terminated saying it to be no longer required, by complying necessary provisions in this regard about notice and allowances etc. In Ihe appointmentorder also, a Clause regarding termination after giving notice is there. Ina private institutions, if the studentsofa partiGular subject are not available since last 3-4 yeareand on this ground, the services are being terfninated by taking assistance of Clause 29(2)0f theBye Laws', applicable.to such institution, the action taken by the-institufion cannot be said to be arbitraryor malafide. The --T--.—^-^-^-rf^^;- r- ildiaatA -ss^.'; tfal^r^'^- vatti ^ Writ Appeal No. 203 of2007 arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that without abolitionof the pOst,theterminationunderClause29(2)wasnotpossjble cannot be accepted in the facts and Gircumstances of the case. (12) We donotfind any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. tt< (13) The appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. (14) There shall be no order^s to the cost. '\. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- s""il Kumar Sinha Judge