& Education Board Vs. Rajender Prasad Gupta  INSC 318 (26 February 1996)
K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)
1996 AIR 1336 1996 SCC (3) 598 JT 1996 (3) 378 1996 SCALE (2)908
O R D
counsel on both sides.
appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High Court of
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench made on March 9, 1994 in Special Appeal No.36(SB) of 1993.
respondent was appointed as an untrained teacher in the proceedings dated May 5, 1964. He was given an opportunity to undergo training on September 29, 1958, but he did not avail of the
opportunity. He was given another opportunity on July 28, 1969, but he again did not avail of the same. Since he had not
availed of the opportunity, he was not permitted to continue in service.
Consequently, he filed a civil suit which came to be transferred to the service
Tribunal which dismissed the petition. Then he moved the High Court. The High
Court by its impugned order has held that termination without following the
prescribed procedure is illegal and consequently it directed reinstatement of
the respondent in the service with consequential benefits. Thus this appeal by
contended by Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that the
appointment was on temporary basis and the candidate being untrained teacher,
he was required to undergo training; and when he failed to avail of that
opportunity, as per the policy of the Government the appellant had no option
except to discontinue the services of the respondent. Consequently, he is not
entitled to remain in service from 1968.
stated by Mr. Garg, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, that
Government had extended the time for the training but he has not been given
opportunity. The letter of appointment did not indicate that his service would
come to an end in accordance with the procedure.
correspondence indicates that appropriate action was to be taken against the
respondent if he would not undergo training. No such action has been taken as
per service rules. Since no action has been taken, the termination of the
respondent's service following proper procedure for not undergoing training, is
illegal. The High Court was, therefore, right in giving direction to the
appellant to reinstate the respondent in service irrespective of the
fulfillment of the condition of training.
respondent is an untrained teacher appointed by order dated May 5, 1964 on a monthly pay of Rs.40/-. His service were
terminated without any notice. It is also an admitted fact that opportunity was
given to him to undergo training but he did not avail of that opportunity on
the ground that he was bitten by dog. Under these circumstances and the
admitted position, the question is: whether the respondent can continue in
service without completing his training and whether the appellant's predecessor
was empowered to discontinue the services of the respondent? It is true that
letters have been issued by the Government to give training facilities on
executing a bond but he did not avail of that opportunity and subsequently he
was directed to be continued on fixed pay of the untrained teachers. That
situation does not arise nor helps the respondent for the reason that he was
discontinued from services since the year 1969. He was required to undergo
training as prescribed by the Government. Since he had not undergone training,
the letter discontinuing the services cannot be said to be illegal. The High
Court, therefore, was wholly wrong in its finding that required procedure was
to be completed for discontinuance of untrained teachers' service before
service came to an end. .
also relied upon the decision of this Court in U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad and Anr.
vs. Hari Deo Mani Tripathi and Ors. [SLR Vol.87 (1993) 1-15]. In that case
though the respondents were untrained temporary teachers and after they
obtained training certificates in 1976 this Court directed the appellants to
fix seniority from the date of obtaining training certificates. The ratio of
this case has no application to the facts of this case.
appeal is accordingly allowed. The writ petition stands dismissed. No order as