U.P. SHIKSHA AND EDUCATION BOARD versus RAJENDER PRASAD GUPTA

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 1053 · Decided: 26-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-· 
-
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. 
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. 
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. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
Heard counsel on both sides. 
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. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
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 
B came to be transferred to the service Tribunal which dismissed the petition. 
Then he moved the High Court. The High Court by its impugned order 
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. 
C 
It is contended by Mr. Gupta, learned counse.l appearing for the 
D 
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. 
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 un

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.