Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Kashyapkumar M Thakkar vs Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti on 19 March, 2026
:: 1 :: O.A.No.103/2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BENCH
O.A. No.103 of 2026
Dated this the 19th day of March, 2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble
ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
Kashyapkumar M. Thakkar,
Son of Manaharlal Thakkar,
Aged about 32 years,
Formerly engaged as Contractual TGT (Computer Science),
Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,
Vadnagar,
District Mehsana, Gujarat ........Applicant
(Party
(Party-in-Person)
Versus
1. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti,
through its Commissioner,
B-15,
15, Institutional Area, Sector
Sector-62,
Noida, Uttar Pradesh - 201 307.
2. Deputy Commissioner,
Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti,
Regional Office, Pune.
3. Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,
Vadnagar, District Mehsana,
Gujarat. ... Respondents
ORDER
Per :Hon'bleDr.Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
1. Being aggrieved by the Order No.2 No.2-9/JNVM/2025-26/704 26/704 dated 21.01.2026 issued by the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (hereinafter referred to as "NVS") (through the Principal/Competent Authority, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Vadnagar District Mehsana, Gujarat) whe whereby the contract employment of the applicant had been terminated,, had filed this 2026.04.01 SEEMA 15:51:39 SANTHOSH +05'30' :: 2 :: O.A.No.103/2026 Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following relief:
relief:-
"8.1 Quashment/Declaration 8.1.1 Quash and set aside the impugned Termination Order served on 21.01.2026 (effective from 22.01.2026) as illegal, arbitrary, punitive, stigmatic, violative of principles of natural justice, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
8.1.2 Declare that the termination of the Applicant during the subsistence of a valid contractual tenure (which was up to 31.03.2026 as per the appointment letter), without any inquiry, show-cause cause notice, or opportunity of hearing, is unsustainable in law, notwithstanding the colourable use of the contractual clause relied upon by the Respondents. 8.1.3 Direct the Respondents to issue a clean and non-stigmatic stigmatic service certificate to the Applicant, certifying the contractual period of engagement as per appointment letter, irrespective of the impugned termination as if the impugned order dated 21.01.2026 never existed, without adverse remarks or references thereto 8.2 Monetary / Compensatory Relief:Award monetary compensation to the Applicant for wrongful and premature termination, loss of livelihood, lihood, mental agony, reputational harm, and other consequential losses, in lieu of reinstatement (the Applicant not pressing for reinstatement), equivalent to salary from the date of termination (22.01.2026) till the end of the contractual tenure (31.03.2 (31.03.2026) with interest at such rate as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit (say 9-12% 12% per annum) plus an additional lump sum equivalent to 6-1212 months' salary or such amount as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, consistent with settled law on punitive termination of contractual employees.
8.3 Any Other Relief:8.3.1 Direct the Respondent No. 1
(Commissioner, NVS) to conduct a formal factfact- finding inquiry into the conduct of Respondent No. 3 (Principal) for blatant violation of institutional norms, misuse of official position, 2026.04.01 SEEMA 15:51:39 SANTHOSH +05'30' :: 3 :: O.A.No.103/2026 and for passing a punitive order in tthe garb of a contractual clause, to ensure accountability.
8.3.2 Pass such other or further order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, including directions to ensure transparency, fairness, rness, and adherence to principles of natural justice in handling of contractual teachers in NVS institutions to prevent recurrence of similar irregularities. 8.4 Costs:
Award costs of the present Original Application, including exemplary costs for harassm harassment, arbitrary action, and litigation expenses, in favo favour of the Applicant.
"The Applicant prays for the aforesaid reliefs against the Respondents jointly and severally, as they are collectively responsible for the impugned actions and omissions."
2. The applicant appeared as a Party Party-in-Person.
3. Brief facts of the case of the applicant are as follows:-
3.1 The applicant was appointed as TGT (Computer Science) on contractual basis vide appointment letter dated 13.09.2025 (Annexure A/9) and joined duties a (Annexure-A/9) att Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Vadnagar, Mehsana District under NVS. The applicant had been discharged duties which were assigned that inter-alia alia includes academic teaching, ICT and technical support, MOD duties, exam duties (including board Class Class-X X practical cal examination), night supervisory duties as House Tutor for two allotted student houses, retention duties for board classes, PPC 2026 PPC-2026 Registration and school magazine compilation (01.11.2025 to 03.01.2026 (Annexure A A-11).
11).
Throughout his tenure, the applicant applicant was never issued any show--cause cause notice, charge sheet, memorandum or explanation call, nor was he subjected to any inquiry.
2026.04.01 SEEMA 15:51:39 SANTHOSH +05'30' :: 4 :: O.A.No.103/2026 3.2 It was stated by the applicant that conditional orders relating to lack of punctuality, unsatisfactory work were of general instructions concerned to all staffs were issued. general However, no formal show cause notice or opportunities by respondents were ever provided to the applicant before the impugned termination. It was stated that grounds which were endorsed in the aforementioned aforementioned letter mentioned as 'unsatisfactory conduct' and 'lack of punctuality' without any prior inquiry or disclosure of supporting material. Therefore, in order to seek clarity from the respondents, the applicant sought clarification of verbal directions of fluctuating scope, including additional work beyond duty hours, conveyed without defined timelines or parameters of availability. Therefore, in order to transparency and accountability, the applicant sought clarification and procedural guidance on add additional itional work assignments, MOD duty responsibilities, student attendance updates, task communication protocols, proper routing channels and accountability measures.
3.3 Further, the applicant was also assigned magazine assignment which was carried out fro from m 01.11.2025 to 03.01.2026 (Annexure-A-11).
(Annexure 11). Upon completion of the assigned work, the applicant proposed a written handover. On 01.01.2026, while seeking written clarification regarding the handover process in the Principal's chamber, a verbal exchange took took place wherein reference was made by the Principle for possible service termination. The applicant had also preserved a contemporaneous record of the interaction (Annexure (Annexure-A-1).
3.4 The applicant's written communication to the respondent wherein no reply was received by the applicant or whatever replies had been given was of generalized office orders dated 17.12.2025 (Annexure 8), (Annexure-A-8), 07.01.2026 (Annexure (Annexure-A-3),
3), 2026.04.01 SEEMA 15:51:39 SANTHOSH +05'30' :: 5 :: O.A.No.103/2026 16.01.2026, and 20.01.2026 20.01.2026 (Annexure A A-2).
2). These orders contained broad directions regarding duties and punctuality applicable to staff generally, without identifying any individualized incident, deficiency or specific charge concerning the applicant. The applicant had completed the orally assigned magazine work and formally communicated its handover through email dated 03.01.2026 (Annexure A A-11).
11). On 20.01.2026 one day prior to the termination order dated
21.01.2026, when additional material relating to the Vidyalaya Patrika (magazine) (magazine) was shown to the applicant, he recorded that the earlier assignment stood completed and that any fresh responsibility may be issued in writing. This communication was expressly given for a record purposes, made in good faith to ensure accountability, accountability, and did not amount to insubordination or refusal of duty, but was an exercise of professional accountability. Additionally, the applicant also communicated and informed to the regional office about facts and details and placing on record the background background of the magazine work, the absence of written allocation, lack of accountability and the verbal termination pressure faced on 01.01.2026 he sought written clarity.
3.5 Subsequently, the applicant was served with a termination order dated 21.01.2026 vide order No.2-- 9/JNVM/2025 26/704 dated 21.01.2026. The aforementioned 9/JNVM/2025-26/704 order cited reasons including insistence on written instructions, lack of punctuality, failure to complete work, and unsatisfactory conduct. Moreover, no show cause notice, or charge sheet, or inquiry or opportunity of hearing preceded the order. Thereafter the applicant immediately completed the compliances of the termination order including hand over charge, no dues clearance, and vacation of staff quarters on 22.01.2026. Despite such such bonafide compliances with all post termination instructions, the applicant placed subsequent developments on 2026.04.01 SEEMA 15:51:39 SANTHOSH +05'30' :: 6 :: O.A.No.103/2026 record with the Regional office vide communication dated 23.01.2026 following his earlier communication dated 05.01.2026 and with the Headquart Headquarters ers vide communication dated 03.02.2026. Those communications were limited to ensure transparency and supervisory consideration without seeking any personal relief or reconsideration at that stage, thereby evidencing the applicant's bonafide conduct. How However, ever, the applicant had not received any response from the authority. Therefore, being aggrieved by the order, the applicant filed the present O.A. 3.6 The applicant enumerated the incident with verbal pressure for resignation on 05.01.2026 while he was u unwell nwell with fever and off duty. The applicant had his phone on silent mode, was resting and an MTS Staff member (Gaurav Bhai) was sent physically to his residence to call him for additional work. For safety in the pressure situation, the applicant started a voice recorder before opening the door. The MTS informed him that the Principal was calling but the applicant was not answering. The applicant asked the MTS to wait and call the Principal in his presence. The Principal initially expressed concern for the applicant's health but then discussed tasks related to the magazine work. In response, the applicant insisted on written instructions for any additional service, as the handover had been completed on 03.01.2026, the principal asked him to resign. The applicant declined stating that, if, the work was not satisfactory, termination could be effected instead of resignation. He also mentioned that contemporaneous records of the physical interaction and telephonic conversation were preserved, reflecting reflecting the sequence and context.
4. On the basis of above, he prayed that OA may be admitted, and notice may be issued on the following grounds:
grounds:-
2026.04.01 SEEMA 15:51:39 SANTHOSH +05'30' :: 7 :: O.A.No.103/2026 4.1 From the date of joining on 15.09.2025 onwards, the applicant made sincere and continuous efforts to diligently perform all assigned duties, including those e extending xtending beyond scheduled hours in good faith and with full commitment.
However, the applicant encountered significant difficulties due to the assignment of additional additional task without proper delegation of authority or adherence to established protocols, such as the issuance of clear Standard Operating Procedure (SOPs) defined timelines, or structured, overlapping responsibilities, and an unreasonable workload.
4.2 In response between 10.11.2025 and 28.11.2025, the applicant proactively submitted multiple written communications to the Principal seeking clarification and procedural guidance on additional work assignments, MOD duty responsibilities, student attendance, updates, updates, task communication protocols, proper routing channels, and accountability measures. These representations were made in good faith, demonstrating the applicant's full commitment to perform all duties transparently and compliantly, including readine readiness ss to accept additional responsibilities, and auditable process. The applicant did not see any written responses clarification, dissatisfaction, warning, or advisory from the Principal during this period.
4.3 He also referred the Rule 3(3)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 which mandates that a government servant receiving oral instructions must seek written confirmation from the higher authorities to ensure accountability. Since it binds the applicant to conduct befitting a 'Government Servant', he was as legally obligated to follow these rules. Further on 16.12.2025, when again directed to perform work in the Principal's chamber after duty hours the applicant documented the incident through whats-app whats app message and a formal e e-mail mail dated 17.12.2025 for assuring assuring with residential system duties 2026.04.01 SEEMA 15:51:39 SANTHOSH +05'30' :: 8 :: O.A.No.103/2026 may be assigned at any time and explicitly stating that ,if any, staff member feels overburdened or finds it difficult to continue with such responsibilities, they may submit a request for relief from duties by giving one month's prior notice, strictly as per the rules in force', thereby implying that difficulty or reluctance in performing extended duties would necessitate resignation or notice. This coercive pattern escalated with verbal termination pressure on 01.01.2026 01.01.2026 followed by further verbal pressure for resignation on 05.01.2026 (when the applicant was unwell and off duty as documented), reinforcing punitive intent rather than genuine service exigency.
4.4 The sequence of repeated silence on clarifications followed lowed by the first coercive administrative order on 17.12.2025 escalating to verbal termination pressure on 01.01.2026 and further resignation pressure on 05.01.2026 shows a shift from administrative silence to coercive enforcement. The impugned terminati termination on on stigmatic grounds without prior inquiry, further evidences that Clause 9 was invoked punitively in reaction to the applicant's insistence on procedural clarity, not for any bona fide suitability assessment. On 07.01.2026 addressed to the applicant he herein, rein, a letter was given by the Principal wherein it was mentioned that it had been observed with concern that due punctuality and timely reporting was observed with concern that due punctuality and timely reporting for duty are not being maintained consis consistently."
tently." The order further alleged that any lapse in reporting on time adversely affects academic activities, directed him to report for duty punctually and to adhere strictly to the prescribed working hours and assigned duties with immediate effect and w warned arned that any further negligence, delay on non non-compliance compliance shall be viewed seriously and may invite administration action as per the terms and conditions of your contract, without an further notice.
2026.04.01 SEEMA 15:51:39 SANTHOSH +05'30' :: 9 :: O.A.No.103/2026 4.5 The applicant also relied on different cases especi especially ally on the point of natural justice. He relied on judgment of Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences [1999 AIR SC 983], Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab [1974 AIR 2192] Ratnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar 2015.
Therefore on the basis of above judgment, applicant defined the termination order under Article 14 as he has been not given opportunity to clarify his position.
4.6 He further mentioned that the applicant details all assigned duties including compiled m material aterial via Google Drive on 03.01.2026, Viksit Bharat Buildathon 2025, Pariksha Pe Charcha (PPC) 2026 registrations, and completing registrations for 444 students and 10+ teachers. Completion of Magazine requested written clarity for further assignments via staff group update marking the initial occasion for such procedural transparency. These tasks were transparently documented through contemporaneous group messages and emails, without any refusal or delay. He also referred Clause 9 contractual documents wherein it is mandatory for contractual powers documents including termination must be exercised bona fide and supported by contemporaneous evidence of unsuitability or misconduct. Invocation could not be colourable or arbitrary. He also contended that there was was no supporting document contemporaneous supporting record or documentary which provided that the work of applicant was not satisfactory and the grounds mentioned in termination order appeared as deliberate afterthought and were retaliatory in nature p penalizing enalizing legitimate requests for procedural clarity after satisfactory discharge of duties. Such invocation of contractual power is colourable aimed at masking punitive intent rather than genuine 2026.04.01 SEEMA 15:51:39 SANTHOSH +05'30' :: 10 :: O.A.No.103/2026 unsuitability assessment, rendering the termination legall legally y unsustainable under Article-14.
Article 4.7 The termination order was also issued without any show cause notice, formal inquiry, hearing or opportunity to respond preceded the impugned termination order dated 21.01.2026. Earlier office orders including 07.01.20 07.01.2026 26 (alleging punctuality lapses without evidence or specific charges) and 20.01.2026 (coercive directions on PPC-2026:
PPC 2026: Bouquet of Activities reg compliance) were generalized or individualized without measurable standards or prior warning.
4.8 Moreover, this his order dated 20.01.2026 was not served on 20.01.2026 but deliberately served on 21.01.2026 together with the termination order affording no reasonable time to respond, comply, or explain rendering any purported opportunity illusory in substance. Therefore, Therefore, on the basis of above, the applicant submitted that this OA may be admitted and notice may be issued.
5. Heard the Party-in-Person Person and perused the material on record especially the guidelines.
6. It is an admitted fact that the applicant was appointed as TGT (Computer Science on contractual basis vide appointment letter dated 13.09.2025 and joined duties at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Mehsana District under NVS.
Vidyalaya, It is undisputedly admitted fact by the applicant that in his Original Application the applicant licant was given two letters viz., dated 07.01.2026 which was alleging punctuality lapses without evidence or specific charges on 20.01.2026 for coercive directions. He was also given very specific direction vide letter dated 7.1.2026 based on certain work work which are reproduced herein:
herein:-
"1. All academic work, examination examination-related duties, and work related to competitive examinations any technical computer related 2026.04.01 SEEMA 15:51:39 SANTHOSH +05'30' :: 11 :: O.A.No.103/2026 help to all staff assigned to you must be completed within the stipulated time without fail. Any additional duties assigned by the Principal / Senior Most Teacher / Office Superintendent shall be carried out promptly, sincerely, and within the prescribed timeline.
No any separate order will be given on daily basis. Any negligence, delay, or failure to perform assigned duties shall be viewed seriously.
2. In case of non-performance, performance, negligence, or dereliction of duty, disciplinary action shall be initiated as per the terms and conditions of your contract. The applicability of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 to a contract teacher shall be governed by the provisions mentioned in the contract agreement executed by you.
3. You are further informed that Jawahar Navodaya vodaya Vidyalaya is a fully residential institution, where both students and staff reside on campus. As such, the Principal is authorized to assign official duties whenever required in the interest of the institution, and you shall be duty-bound bound to comply.
comply."
7. Perused the number of Circulars and correspondence by the applicant herein. It appears that the applicant was in a habit of making unnecessary communications with the Princip Principal al and other authorities of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Mehsana on their trivial issues. It is also evident that the applicant was frequently sending e e-mails mails seeking written responses which had adversely affected the smooth functioning of Vidyalaya with the Principal and other authorities of the Jawahar Navodaya Navod Vidyalaya.
8. It was also submitted by the applicant that although he was claiming that he had not been given any show cause and prior notice before the termination of order dated 22.01.2026, however on record, two letters are placed by the applicant himself, imself, which is specifically addressed to the applicant herein 2026.04.01 SEEMA 15:51:39 SANTHOSH +05'30' :: 12 :: O.A.No.103/2026 indicating certain serious issues which had adversely affected the smooth functioning of the Vidyalaya. Further, as it is evident from the correspondence e e-mails mails and letter said to have been issued by principle, he had not been punctual in discharging his duties and had failed to complete the assigned work within the stipulated timelines.
9. The applicant was appointed on contractual basis which is scheduled to be completed on 31.03.2026. T Therefore, herefore, the applicant cannot ask as a matter of right for any other extension of his service beyond the contractual period. Moreover, the applicant himself while submitting the application through email admitted that he had not asked any relief from the respondent authority for his personal benefit.
Therefore, in view of what is stated herein above, we do not find any merit in this OA and dismissed at the admission stage.
(Dr. Hukum Singh Meena)
Meena (Jayesh V. Bhairavia)
Member (A) Member (J)
SKV
2026.04.01
SEEMA
15:51:39
SANTHOSH
+05'30'