Allahabad High Court
Committee Of Management, Navli Inter ... vs Raj Narain Singh And Others on 14 December, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000(2)AWC1150, (2000)1UPLBEC694
JUDGMENT R. S. Dhavan, J.
1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 31st October, 1995 in Writ Petition No. 20689 of 1995 ; Sri Raj Narain Singh and 9 others v. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Varanasi Region, Varanasi and 4 others. The 9 petitioners were primary school teachers at an institution, known as Swawlambi Basic Primary Pathshala, Navli, Ghazipur. All the petitioners in the writ petition are permanent teachers at the school. They have been teaching at the Primary School. The Committee of Management of the School had planned to upgrade the school to the Intermediate Section. On this aspect, there is no issue.
2. If it were only a matter of upgrading the school and Integrating the primary school to the Intermediate Courses, then, there would have been no controversy. But. the management had other plans. It has been indicated by learned counsel for the appellant, aggrieved by the decision on the writ petition, that the space at the premises of the school was inadequate and if the primary school had been retained, i.e.. the upgraded Intermediate Section along with the primary school, then, the accommodation would have been constricted and squeezed. Thus, the management decided to finish off the primary school and in lieu of it add the plus-two or the Intermediate Section. On this was born an issue between the assistant teachers who, apparently, received a notice from the management simply indicating to them that their services would not be required and they would be bundled out of their jobs as the school would henceforth function without the primary school but with the high school and intermediate courses. What the management planned was to shut down the primary school. There was no complaint against any of the assistant teachers. The termination of services of the assistant teachers at the primary school was a class action which was faced by the comity of the assistant teachers of the primary school. The notice was only an empty formality intimating them, or, for that matter, sounding them that their services would no longer be required. According to the management, they were following the principle of rule of natural justice in giving an opportunity to these teachers to answer the notice. But. it is accepted that it had been decided that the notice was tantamount to giving a broad hint that these teachers should pack up and go away from the institution.
3. At this stage, finding themselves under a notice that the primary school would close down and they would be out of their jobs and having been so warned by such a notice, these teachers, ten of them, filed a writ petition. They challenged the notice, in fact, the very jurisdiction to issue such a notice and said that the law does not contemplate such a general sweeping notice that as a class the teachers concerned should be bundled out of employment only because the management had thought it fit to shut down the primary school and retain the High School with an upgraded Intermediate Courses. Their contention is that there was no cause which permits their dismissal, for any misdemeanour or such like aspects, inasmuch as the management resorted to legal engineering by giving them notice to offer a defence against a decision that there will be a closure of the primary school.
4. These teachers, in their writ petition, contended that the very genesis of giving them notice admittedly amounted to removal from service by the management, which cannot be done unless prior approval of the authority concerned has been obtained. According to the learned Judge whose judgment is challenged, the authority is the authority which controls integrated schools, that is, primary. high school and Intermediate. Such institutions are governed by the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. 1921.
5. On behalf of the Committee of Management, arguments were advanced on the writ petition of the right to close down an institution, as a right inherent in the management, and a distinction was being made that only when the dismissal order is ultimately presented to these teachers that may be the stage for them to be aggrieved as it is only the actual dismissal which required approval of the District Inspector of Schools.
6. The learned Judge who gave the judgment on the writ petition, has given copious reasons on why he interfered on the petition of the ten teachers. The learned Judge has noticed the law and has interpreted the situation that the very genesis of giving a notice to the teachers without prior approval of the authority concerned is void ab initio and it cannot be sustained and, thus, has quashed these notices.
7. This Court views the situation with concern with yet additional reasons and confirms the Judgment of the learned Judge.
8. In the grounds of appeal, the Committee of Management relied on the principle of Industrial adjudication as a right inherent in a management to resort to closure of an industry. This aspect cannot be seen in a vacuum. The closure of an industry is writ large with several obligations on the management. The management of an industry is restricted to first satisfy certain conditions on who came first and who was employed last and, then, also the reason why the industry has to be closed. An industrial undertaking cannot be set up and closed down at will. Then, if the closure Is genuine, it visits the workers with retrenchment compensation. Illegal closure has its own consequences. These principles cannot be resorted to by institutions which impart public education. It gives an impression to the Court that closing down the primary school and opening another is more business out of running educational Institutions than providing for public education. The record reveals that the Inception of the Institution began with the primary school. Even the primary teachers do not contend that the institution may not expand. Insofar as this aspect is concerned, the management is within its right to expand the institution beyond the primary school to high school and intermediate classes. But. indiscriminate closure of a primary school and dismissal of existing primary school teachers and throwing them out of employment to fend for themselves and find Jobs elsewhere which are hard to find is an arbitrary action. This matter cannot be seen in isolation. These ten teachers were permanent assistant teachers of the institution, as a primary school, [f the management can be so technical to tailor a circumstance to get rid of permanently employed teachers and bend the law to contrive this situation, then, there is equity which obliges the High Court to render an equal protection of laws to persons aggrieved. Article 14 of the Constitution of India provides this protection. It will be difficult to fault the contention of the teachers that if their services are to be dispensed with, then the provisions prescribed under Chapter III of regulations framed under the Act, aforesaid, would apply.
9. In the circumstances, the Court is unable to certify that the learned Judge was in error in passing the judgment on the petition of the ten primary school teachers the prerogative writ jurisdiction of the High Court is very broad inasmuch as the Committee of Management would like to see their version of it in constriction of the law only as they understand it. This Court is of the view that the matter has to be seen in objectivity. It is no body's case that the management cannot upgrade the school to higher courses. This, they may. But to close down a school only for the reason that the management will find the existing accommodation squeezed virtually Implies that the primary schools teachers are being pushed out of their jobs, in a situation involuntary of them. This cannot be permitted,
10. The learned Judge has committed no error in rendering the judgment on the writ petition. The Judgment is affirmed.
11. The appeal is dismissed with costs.