Supreme Court of India
U.P. SHIKSHA AND EDUCATION BOARDversusRAJENDER PRASAD GUPTA
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 312
- Decided
- 26 February 1996
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
Termination of an untrained teacher for failure to undergo the mandatory training is valid even if the procedural steps for discontinuance of untrained teachers' service are not completed before the service ends.
Summary
Rajender Prasad Gupta was appointed as an untrained temporary teacher on 5 May 1964 and was required to undergo training. He was given two opportunities to attend training in 1968 and 1969 but did not avail them, after which his service was terminated without notice. He challenged the termination, and the Service Tribunal dismissed his petition; the Allahabad High Court reversed that decision, holding the termination illegal and ordering reinstatement. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the termination was valid because the appointment was conditional on completing training, and the authority was empowered to discontinue service when the condition was not fulfilled. The Court found the High Court’s requirement that procedural steps be completed before termination to be misplaced, and dismissed the writ petition, allowing the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether termination of an untrained teacher for failure to undergo mandatory training without following the prescribed procedural steps is illegal.
- Whether the service of an untrained teacher can continue without completing the required training.
- Whether the predecessor authority had the power to discontinue the teacher's service under the training condition.
- Whether the precedent set in U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad v. Hari Deo Mani Tripathi is applicable to the present facts.
Subjects
service lawuntrained teacherterminationtraining requirementprocedural fairnessreinstatementservice tribunalSupreme Court
Judgment
-·
U.P. SHIKSHA AND EDUCATION BOARD A
v.
RAJENDER PRASAD GUPTA
FEBRUARY 26, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B
- Se1Vice Law:
Appointment-Untrained Teache1~Two opportunities given to undergo
trainin~Not availing the opportunitfNot pennitted to continue in ser- C
vij:e-Cliallenge-Rejected by Tribunal-High Court holding that tennination
without fallowing the procedure was illegal and directing reinstatement-On
appeal held, letter discontinuing his selVices not illegal-High Court was
wrong in its finding that the required procedure was to be completed for
discontinuance of untrained teachers' selVice before selVice came to an end.
D
U.P. Basic Shiksha Palishad and Anr. v. Hali Deo Mani Tlipathi and
Ors, SLR Vol. 87 (1993) 1 held inapplicable.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 4288 of
1996.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.3.1994 of the Allahabad High
Court in Spl. A No. 36(SB) of 1993.
Sunil Gupta and H.K. Puri for the Appellants.
D.K. Garg for the Respondents. F
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
Heard counsel on both sides. G
This 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.
The respondent was appointed as an untrained teacher in the H
1053
1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) 2 S.C.R.
A proceedings dated May 5, 1964. He was given an opportunity to undergo
training on September 29, 1968, 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.
B Then he moved the High Court. The High Court by its impugned order
C
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 special leave.
It is contended by Mr. Gupta, learned counse.l 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.
D
It is stated by Mr. Garg, learned counsel appearing for the respon-
dent, 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.
E Subsequent 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 actio'n 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
F irrespective of the fulfilment of the condition of training.
The 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
G 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?
H It is true that letters have been issued by the Government to give
L U.P. SHIKSHAAND EDUN. BD. v. R.P. GUPTA 1055
training facilities on executing a bond but he did not avail of that oppor- A
turiity and ~ubsequently he was directed to be continued on fixed pay of
the untrained teacher. That situation does not arise nor helps the respon-
dent for the reason that he was discontinued from services since the year
1969. He was required to undergo training as prescribed by the Govern-
ment. Since he had not undergone training, the letter discontinuing the B
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.
Mr. Garg also relied upon the decision of this Court in U.P. Basic C
Shiksha Parishad and Anr. v. Hari Deo Mani Tripathi and Ors. SLR Vol.
87 (1993) 1 15. In that case though the respondents were untrained tem-
porary 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. D
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The writ petition stands dis-
missed. No order as to costs.
G.N. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "service law"Sign in to search