- (1.) The writ petition challenges order passed by the fourth respondent Management relieving the petitioners who are Science Teachers at a Higher Secondary level and the order passed by the State allowing the Science classes at 10+2 level to be closed on the ground that the students strength has fallen less than what is prescribed under the Haryana School Education Act and the relevant rules. The order passed by the fourth respondent is per se against law. The Management that obtains grant-in-aid from State cannot act outside the purview of the rules and the rules require that before a teacher is removed, a prior approval of the department of the Education is necessary. This is spelt through Rule 51(4) of the Haryana School Education Rules 2003. The State has itself filed a reply admitting to the fact that the Management had not secured a sanction before relieving the petitioners from their service. The order relieving them is therefore legally suspect.
(2.) As a consequence to the fall in students strength in the Science classes a request appears to have been made by the School to the Director on School Education and the Education Minister has endorsed that the Science Wing could be shifted to another School on 27.5.2010. The Government had passed an order on 13.5.2011 pursuant to the direction from this Court in this writ petition that the Science stream of the School be wound up since there are no students of the Science stream in 10+1 and 10+2 classes in the year 2011-12. By the same order, the Director has observed that the petitioners cannot be adjusted in some other School since there are no provisions in the rules to adjust them. This observation made by the Director and communicated to the State Government and which is placed as Annexure 13/1 is also legally untenable. Rule 59 of the Higher School Education Rules of 2003 provides that no grant for the teachers could be issued by the government on 'uneconomic small class'. Sub Rule 3 reads "the Director shall be competent to transfer the surplus post to another School as per requirement in the same District or outside the District in the State". The Government, which finds it unviable to provide a grant to a School for certain classes is bound at the same time to consider the feasibility of transfer of posts that are rendered surplus to another School as per requirement in the same District or outside the District. It is incorrect for the Director to observe that there are no rules providing for the adjustment. The petitioner gives details of the School within the same District where vacancy exists, i) Govt. Model Sr. Sec. School, Kalka: One Chemistry; ii) Govt. Sr. Sec. School, Momi: One each of Physics, Chemistry and Biology; iii) Govt. Girls Sr. Sec. School Barwala; one Chemistry iv) Govt. Sr. Sec. School, Raipur Rani; One Physics District Ambala v) Govt. Sr. Sec. School, Sapida; one each of Physics, Chemistry and Biology vi) Govt. Sr. Sec. School, Jasui; One each of Physics, Chemistry and Biology; vii) Govt. Sr. Sec. School, Sareheri; One Physics The objection to the readjustment of the School which are mentioned by the petitioner is on the ground that they are all Government Schools and the Government cannot be compelled to accommodate them for posts that are rendered vacant in privately managed Schools. The mandate which the Rules state under Section 59 that spells out the competence of the Director to transfer the surplus posts to another School ought not to be understood as only a transfer to a 'Management School'. If there are vacancies in Government Schools themselves, such vacancies shall be filled up by the Government without turning out of the persons who are competent in the respective streams and where vacancies are available in Government Schools. The provision must be so read that the trained teachers with knowledge ought not to be wasted and they shall be deployed in the manner that subserves the cause of education. Even though the order relieving the petitioners without the prior sanction of the education department is wrong, there is no scope for retaining them and by the subsequent decision taken by the State directing the closure of the Science stream in that School, I do not find any reason to quash the order but instead direct the Government to re-deploy the petitioners in any of the vacant posts in the Schools mentioned above. This appointment shall be done on an appraisal of the necessary educational qualification and experience as prescribed under the relevant rules for appointment in any government Schools. Any recruitment for securing recommendations from the employment exchange may be dispensed with and no advertisement for these posts shall be made in view of the fact that the redeployment is done under the orders of the Court and as a measure of the recognition of the competency of a Director to pass appropriate orders of transfer to another School. At the time of passing of orders the State can also elicit information of any vacancy position from any of the privately managed Schools which obtains State grant and if there are any vacancies within the same District, the State shall be at liberty to redeploy them in any other School by appropriate directions to any other Management. In any event the order directing the re-deployment shall be issued within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Till that date when they are redeployed the petitioners shall be paid the salary and the fourth respondent-Management shall be primarily responsible and the State shall provide the grant in the manner that the law provides for. The redeployment will mean that the petitioners will also have the benefit of continuity of service from the time when they were originally appointed with the fourth respondent. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms.;