In a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India, a resolution has been provided for the termination dispute between the appellant and the respondent-institution. The appellant, whose appointment as a lab attendant and promotion as a junior clerk were approved by the District Education Officer, now has the opportunity to challenge the termination orders. This decision is a crucial development in the legal battle between the parties, ensuring a fair chance for the appellant in seeking justice and reinstatement of rights.
Facts
- The appellant was appointed as a laboratory attendant in the school on a permanent post in 1998.
- Appellant was promoted to the post of junior clerk in 2011.
- Both appointments were approved by the Education Officer on specific dates.
- Tribunal initially condoned the delay in filing the appeal recognizing the appellant’s repeated correspondence with the school regarding the case.
- High Court, however, set aside the Tribunal’s decision and allowed the writ petition.
- The appellant filed Civil Misc. Application No.20 of 2016 for condonation of delay in challenging the oral termination dated 30.11.2013.
- The appeal before the School Tribunal was dismissed leading to the appellant filing Appeal No.75 of 2016 challenging the oral termination dated 30.11.2013.
- During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent-Institution terminated the appellant’s service from the post of Laboratory Attendant on 13.12.2016.
- The appellant claimed that the termination was due to disputes between two groups in the management of the school.
- The appellant sought promotion to the post of junior clerk, supported by orders of the Education Officer in 1999 and 2012.
- Despite orders directing the appellant to join duties, the respondent-Institution did not allow him to do so.
- On 05.01.2017, the appellant filed Appeal No.01 of 2017 before the School Tribunal challenging the termination order dated 13.12.2016.
- The respondent-Institution filed a writ petition challenging the approval granted for the appellant’s promotion by the Education Officer.
Also Read: High Court Acquittal Case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Prakash
Arguments
- Mr. Sachin Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
- Delay in filing the appeal before the School Tribunal to be condoned
- Enable the appellant to challenge the order of termination dated 01.12.2016 and also the oral order of termination dated 30.11.2013
- Opportunity granted to the appellant for challenging the termination orders
- The appointment as lab attendant and promotion as junior clerk were duly approved by the District Education
Also Read: Judgment Review: Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Capital Punishment Appeal
Decision
- The District Education Officer approved the appellant’s roles as a lab attendant and junior clerk.
- The appellant must be given a chance to challenge the termination order by the institution or face great hardship.
- The High Court’s order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
- Appeal Numbers 75/2016 and 1/2017 will be restored to the School Tribunal for further proceedings.
- Both parties will be given sufficient opportunity to present their case before the School Tribunal.
- The School Tribunal is directed to dispose of the appeals within six months from the receipt of this order.
- All contentions raised by the parties can be brought up before the School Tribunal.
Also Read: Synergy and Solution Incorporation v. Vipin Dhopte – Landmark Judgement by Supreme Court of India
Case Title: BALKRISHNA WAMAN ZAMBARE Vs. SIDDHESHWAR SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, DONGARSONI
Case Number: C.A. No.-007001-007001 / 2019
