LexCORRESPONDENT, ST. MICHAEL'S T.T.I versus V.N. KARPAGA MARY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2008] 6 S.C.R. 1086 + • A CORRESPONDENT, ST. MICHAEL'S T.T.I. v V.N. KARPAGA MARY & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2960 of 2008) B APRIL 24, 2008 [S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] Service law - Termination - Government Order raising the qualification for post of teacher - In terms therewith, c Teachers' Institute terminating services of teacher appointed 17 years ago - Challenge to - High Court quashed the termination order and granted back wages - Correctness of - Held: At the time of appointment teacher possessed the requisite qualification - Appointment was on permanent basis D and employee was a regular teacher, as such could not be terminated on basis of the GO since the Order could not be given retrospective effect - Also, no instructions by Government to terminate services of employees validly appointed in terms of the GO - Institute being amenable to E writ jurisdiction, High Court had jurisdiction to set aside the termination order and also to grant back wages - However, in facts and circumstances of the case, back wages reduced to 75% - Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 12 and 226. F Respondent, having the requisite qualification was appointed as a teacher with the appellant institution in 1977. By a Government Order dated 16.9.1994 the requisite qualification for recruitment to the post of teacher in the G school was raised. Thereafter, in terms of the GO, respondent's services were terminated. Respondent challenged the termination order. The Single Judge of High Court quashed the termination order and granted +-·· back wages. It was found that the State did not issue H 1086 CORRESPONDENT, ST MICHAEL'S TT.I. v. V.N. 1087 KARPAGA MARY & OHS. directions for termination of the respondent. On basis A thereof the appellant institutions were directed not to deny employment to the respondent who had been working in the School since 1977. In appeal before the Division Bench of High Court, regarding the payment of back wages to the respondent and the liability of the State or B the appellant institution, the Division Bench upheld the order of the Single Judge of High Court and also held that the appellant Institute could apply to the Government for reimbursement of wages paid to the teacher. Hence, the present appeal. c Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The appellant possessed the requisite qualification at the time of his entry in the service. The educational qualification for a teacher was sought to be 0 raised by the St.ate much later, namely, in the year 1994. Respondent, indisputably, was appointed on a permanent basis. She was a regular teacher, and as such the question of termination of her services relying on or on the basis of the purported GOMs dated 16.9.1994 did not arise as the same had not been given retrospective effect. The E State never said that in terms of the said GOMs, the services of the employees who had validly been appointed should be terminated. [Para 11] [1092-E-G] 1.2 The submission that there was some F apprehension that recognition, as granted by the State to the said institution, may be withdrawn should have been taken up by it with the State at the first instance. It having failed to do so, no legal infirmity can be found in the judgment. [Para 12] [1092-G, H; 1093-A] G 1.3 The courts exercise different jurisdictions while entertaining applications filed under different statutes. While entertaining a suit, the court's jurisdiction would be governed by the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Although principles laid down therein may be found to be H 1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R. A applicable, the said provisions by themselves need not be strictly applied by the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Para 13] (1093-B, C] B 1.4 The question that the appellant was amenable to writ jurisdiction is not in dispute. If it was amenable to writ jurisdiction, the High Court was not only entitled to set aside an order of termination of service on an interpretation that neither the GOMs had any retrospective application nor, in any event, had any application to the c case of appointment of the respondent but also to grant back wages. On the said premise, the High Court had the jurisdiction to set aside the order of termination. Once the order of termination
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.