G. VASANTHA Vs. THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND ORS.
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
The State Of Nagaland And Ors.
Click here to view full judgement.
Nayudu, C.J. -
(1.)IN this petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution the termination of the services of the Petitioner Shrimati G. Vasantha, who was employed with the State of Nagaland as an Assistant Teacher in Zunheboto High School, with effect from 1st April 1967 by an order dated 16th February, 1967 issued by the Deputy Director of Education, Nagaland, Kohima is questioned. claims that she was like nature to quash and cancel the impugned order dated 16 -2 -67 terminating her services and to direct the Respondents including the State of Nagaland to forbear from giving effect to their order terminating her services as mentioned above.
(2.)THE Petitioner first entertained in service in the month of June 1962 and was appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher in Zunheboto High School by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland. According to the Petitioner, she served faithfully and discharged her duties quite efficiently and to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned. The Petitioner, who is a B. A. (Hons.) Graduate of the Madras University, which is equivalent to an M. A. degree, appears to have earned a good reputation as an assistant teacher, as she claims in the petition and she served in the same school till the last date of March 1967 for a period of nearly five years. She claimed that in the seniority list of the Education Department, her name appeared in the 11th position.
In view of her efficient service, the Government of Nagaland in the year 1963, rewarded her with inauguration of the State of Nagaland Medal in view of her loyal and valuable service to the State. She further alleged that all of a sudden and to her great surprise the Deputy Director of Education, Nagaland, Kohima, Respondent No. 4 to the petition, served a notice to the Petitioner dated 16th February, 1967 terminating her services on and from 1st April 1967 without giving any reason or mentioning any grounds for the action taken. The Petitioner further claimed that no information of any kind was given to her, nor was any reason shown for the termination of her services, no charge or changers have been framed against her nor was she given an opportunity to show cause before the termination of her services. The Petitioner further claimed that during the relevant period, that is, 1966 -67, there were five assistant teachers in zunheboto Government High School, Nagaland, where the Petitioner was serving as one of the graduate assistant teachers and that in view of Notification No. EDS/1/29/65 dated 10 -10 -66 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of nagaland the service as well as the post of the Petitioner became permanent.
The Petitioner has claimed that the being in her permanent post in view of the said notification, any termination of her service in the manner aforesaid is against the principle of natural justice and in violation of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution. The Petitioner points out that she made representations against the action taken against her but received no answer. The Petitioner accordingly prays for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or like nature to quash and cancel the impugned order dated 16 -2 -67 terminating her services and to direct the Respondents including the State of Nagaland to forbear from giving as mentioned above.
The State of Nagaland represented by the learned Advocate General of the State contended that the post held by the Petitioner was a temporary post, which according to the contract of service is terminable with one month's notice, that one month's notice had accordingly been given to her, that her services were terminated in conformity with the terms and conditions of the contract of service under which the Petitioner was serving and that there was no mala fides or other cause for terminating her services. As the Petitioner, according to the Respondent, had no permanent footing, she cannot claim the benefit of Article 311 of the Constitution as a precursor to removal from service. It is also claimed that the termination of the services of the Petitioner was in order and no exception can be taken to it. It is also contended by the learned Advocate General that the Petitioner was not a quasi permanent servant and, therefore, the benefits of that service are not attracted in her case and the services of the Petitioner having been rightly terminated, she could have no cause for complaint and the petition should to dismissed.
(3.)IT is clear from the submissions made in the case and the affidavits filed, that the Petitioner was in service for a period of nearly five years as a graduate teacher in the employment of the Nagaland Government, and that she had been appointed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, although in a temporary post. It is also clear that the appointment letter Annexure 'A' to the petition dated 23 -10 -62 did say that the service may be terminated by one calendar month's notice in writing on either side. But the point for consideration have been validly terminated in the circumstances of the case.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.