THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT AND ANOTHER Vs. SMT. KISHORE DEVI UNIYAL
LAWS(UTN)-2013-7-106
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on July 01,2013

The Committee Of Management And Another Appellant
VERSUS
Smt. Kishore Devi Uniyal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Barin Ghosh, J. - (1.) Though maintainability of the writ petition was challenged before the writ court, such challenge has not been thrown before us. On the other hand, the issue was dealt with on merits. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 24th September, 1998. In that, it was contended that because of the financial deficit in the school income and in view of reduction in the strength of students per section warranting merger of sections, why the services of the respondent should not be terminated under the provisions of Section 29(2) of CBSE bye-laws. The reply was sought by 28th September, 1998. Respondent gave a reply before 28th September, 1998, where she held out that she is the senior most in the primary section and, accordingly, it would not be just to terminate her services. On 28th September, 1998, however, appellants terminated the services of the respondent with immediate effect. While doing so, it was purportedly held out that the same is being done under Rule 129(b) of AWES Rules. It was not disputed before the writ court and also before us that Rule 129(b) of AWES Rules did not apply to the case. It was accepted that Rule 135 of AWES Rules holds the fort. The said Rule authorized termination of service due to abolition of post etc., which mandated that while effecting such termination, three months' notice in writing or three months' salary including all allowances must be given. Similarly, Section 29(2) of C.B.S.E. bye-laws also held out in the same line noticing that the learned Judge has interfered with the termination order by the judgment and order under appeal. We have not been able to convince ourselves that the judgment is interferable.
(2.) The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, after the services of the respondent were terminated, she was reengaged on 19th December, 1998. The fact remains that on 19th December, 1998 she did not return to join her services which were terminated by the termination order dated 28th September, 1998. On the other hand, the same was a service on honorarium, which also was terminated in 1999.
(3.) We, accordingly, refuse to interfere. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.