Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dr. Rajinder Kumar Singla vs The Lawrence School on 19 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.81/2022 Date of Decision: 19th June, 2025.
Dr. Rajinder Kumar Singla .....Appellant Versus The Lawrence School, Sanawar & Ors. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Raman Sethi, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2.
Ms. Rita Goswami, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Komal Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral).
The appellant, by filing this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 16.05.2019, passed by the Learned District Judge, District Solan, H.P. in Civil Appeal No.88/2014 affirming the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2014, passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), District Solan, HP, in Civil Suit No. 40/1 of 2010.
2. The parties shall be referred to as the "plaintiff" and the "defendants" in this judgment, as they stood before the trial court for the purposes of brevity. The facts material and relevant for the disposal of this second appeal, in brief are that The plaintiff filed a civil suit under Sections 34 and 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking a declaration that the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 termination letter dated 02.01.2007, whereby his services were terminated by defendant No.1, was wrongful, illegal, arbitrary, null, void, and not binding upon him. He further sought reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay, along with a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant school from terminating his services except in accordance with due process of law.
3. The plaintiff's case was that he held a B.Sc (Medical) (First Division), M.Sc (Botany) (First Division), and a Ph.D. in the Faculty of Science from Punjab University, Chandigarh. He applied for the post of PGT Biology (as per CBSE Affiliation Bye- laws) in response to an advertisement dated 27.11.2003, was interviewed on 12.01.2004, and was appointed vide letter dated 16.01.2004 for an initial period of one year, extendable as per terms and conditions. He claimed to have served with dedication but was terminated illegally on 02.01.2007 after raising concerns about academic lapses and indiscipline in the school.
4. The defendants (Nos. 1, 2, and 4) contested the suit, admitting the plaintiff's appointment but asserting that his termination was lawful under Clause 8 of the appointment letter, which allowed termination with three months' notice or salary in lieu thereof. They alleged that the plaintiff's teaching methods and behavior were unsatisfactory, with complaints 3 from students, and despite warnings, he failed to improve. Defendant No.3 was proceeded against ex-parte.
5. The trial court framed the following issues for determination:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that his termination was arbitrary and illegal, rendering the termination letter null and void? (OPP)
2. If issue No.1 is proved in the affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to reinstatement with all benefits and interest @ 24% from the date of termination till realization? (OPP)
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable as it involves a contract for personal service, which cannot be enforced by a court of law?
(OPD)
4. Whether no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff to file the suit? (OPD)
5. Whether the suit is not properly valued for court fee and jurisdiction? (OPD)
6. Relief.
6. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and relied on documentary evidence (Ex. PW1/A to Ex. PW1/J). The defendants examined Dr. V.K. Sharma, Dean of Faculty, as DW1, who produced various communications (Ex. DW1/B to Ex. DW1/P) and the appointment letter (Ex. D1).
7. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the termination was lawful, the contract had expired, and the suit was not maintainable as specific performance of a personal service contract could not be enforced. The first appeal was filed contending that the courts below erred in law and fact, particularly in ignoring that the termination was not by the competent authority (Board of Governors) and that the findings 4 on contractual service were incorrect. The same was dismissed, leading to the present second appeal.
8. Heard the parties perused the impugned judgements.
9. In the present suit, the plaintiff seeks a declaration that his termination from service vide letter dated 02.01.2007 by defendant No.1 is wrongful, illegal, null, and void, along with reinstatement and consequential benefits. It is undisputed that the plaintiff was appointed as a PGT Biology teacher vide appointment letter dated 16.01.2004 (Ex. D-1) and continued in service until his termination on 02.01.2007 (Ex. PW1/J). The plaintiff contends that defendant No.1, being the Headmaster, lacked authority to terminate him, as such decisions were to be taken by the Board of Governors.
10. The defendants assert that the termination was justified due to the plaintiff's unsatisfactory performance, poor teaching abilities, and numerous complaints regarding his attitude and behavior toward students. Despite repeated warnings, he failed to improve and was found engaging in anti-school activities. The termination was effected under Clause 8 of the appointment letter (Ex. D-1), which permits termination without reason by giving three months' notice or salary in lieu thereof. Admittedly, defendant No.1 enclosed a cheque for three months' salary along with provident fund benefits at the time of termination, complying with the contractual terms.
5
11. Plaintiff's contractual appointment was for 5 years. Offer of appointment was made by the Headmaster (Ex.D1). The same is endorsed and duly signed by the plaintiff. Signatories to the contract were the Headmaster and the plaintiff. Hence, the Headmaster was well within his right to terminate the contract of employment.
12. The Supreme Court in Vaish Degree College, Shamli & Ors. v. Lakshmi Narain & Ors. (AIR 1976 SC 888) and Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd. v. Manorama Sirsi (2004) 3 SCC
172) has held that contracts for personal service cannot be specifically enforced, except in limited statutory or constitutional exceptions, none of which apply here. The plaintiff's remedy, if any, lies in a suit for damages, not reinstatement.
13. In terms of Clause eight reasons for termination need not be communicated to the plaintiff. However, reasons must exist on record. The documentary evidence, including communications (Ex. DW1/D to DW1/P) and the counsellor's report (Ex. DW1/P), substantiates the defendants' claim that the plaintiff's performance and conduct were unsatisfactory. The school management, acting within contractual terms, validly terminated his services.
14. The trial court and the First Appellate Court correctly dismissed the suit, appeal and there is no illegality in the termination warranting interference. The findings of both the 6 courts below are affirmed, and the plaintiff's claim for declaration and reinstatement is rejected.
15. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, there arises no question of law, much-less a substantial question of law for consideration of the Court, therefore, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 19th June, 2025 (T.B/Gaurav Rawat)