Civil Writ Petition No.7883 of 1997 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7883 of 1997 Date of Decision: 19thOctober,2011. Sahib Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others ...Respondents Civil Writ Petition No.7882 of 1997 Tarsem Lal ..Petitionner Versus State of Haryana and Others ..Respondents Civil Writ Petition No.3288 of 1997 Shamsher Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others ....Respondents Civil Writ Petition No.7930 of 1997 Surinder Kaur, S.S.Master ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR Present: Mr.T.S.Chauhan Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.L.Sharma Advocate for the petitioner. (in CWP No.7882 of 1997). Mr.Anjum Ahmed, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr.H.S.Gill Sr. Advocate for respondents No.4 to 6. * * * Nirmaljit Kaur, J.(Oral) The petitions bearing Nos.7883, 7882, 7930 and 3288 of 1997 are being disposed of vide a common order as all the four cases are identical. For the convenience of the court, the facts are being taken from Civil Writ petition No.7883 of 1997. Civil Writ Petition No.7883 of 1997 2 The prayer in these petitions is for issuance of direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner on duty and allow him to mark his presence in the Attendance Register of the School and perform his duty and enjoy all the benefits and rights as a confirmed employee of the school as well as for quashing of dismissal order, if any, with all the consequential benefits. After hearing the parties, the following facts emerge: 1. The proposal of punishment of termination was sent to the District Education Officer for approval in terms of The Haryana Aided Schools (Security of Service) Act, 1971 and The Haryana Aided Schools (Security of Service) Rules, 1974. 2. As per the averments of the petition, the District Education Officer sent the matter back to the Management on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to grant or reject the approval as the institution was a minority institution. 3. As per para 12 of the written statement, no case of approval or dismissal has been sent from respondents No.4 to 6. 4. However, a perusal of Annexure P-16, which is a letter sent by the District Education Officer to Deputy Commissioner, Ambala, only Tarsem Lal, S.S.Master of the School was dismissed by the Management without prior approval of the office. Thus, the very facts as to whether any termination order has been passed or not and if passed whether it is passed with or without approval of the competent authority under the Act are disputed. Civil Writ Petition No.7883 of 1997 3 At this stage, learned counsel for respondents No.4 to 6 has brought to the notice of this Court that school has since been taken over by the State and an administrator has been appointed. In view of the above, it would be appropriate that the matter is remanded back to the District Education Officer to take a final decision in accordance with law on the following issues as made out in the facts of each case: a) With respect to grant of approval or not of the proposed punishment of termination if proposed by Management. b) Approval or setting aside the order of termination if passed without seeking approval. c) The decision whether to reinstate or not in case no such termination order has been passed at all. The petitioner will be at liberty to raise all the pleas before the District Education Officer. The party shall appear before the District Education Officer Ambala on 23rd November, 2011 at 3.00 P.M. Taking into account that the matter is pending since long, the same shall be decided within six months from the receipt of this order by passing a speaking order. The Administrator of the school shall make available the entire record to the District Education Officer for final decision. (Nirmaljit Kaur) 19th October, 2011. Judge Seema-II Civil Writ Petition No.7883 of 1997 4