Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard an appeal by special leave filed by U.P. Shiksha & Education Board against a judgment of the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. The respondent, Rajender Prasad Gupta, was appointed as an untrained teacher on May 5, 1964. According to the judgment, he was given an opportunity to undergo training on September 29, 1958, and another opportunity on July 28, 1969, but did not avail either. As a result, his services were discontinued. He filed a civil suit, which was transferred to the Service Tribunal and dismissed. He then moved the High Court, which held that termination without following prescribed procedure was illegal and directed reinstatement with consequential benefits. The Board appealed to the Supreme Court. The appellant contended that the appointment was temporary and that an untrained teacher was required to undergo training; since he failed to avail the opportunity, the Board had no option but to discontinue his services. The respondent argued that the Government had extended the time for training but no opportunity was actually given; the appointment letter did not indicate that service would end; subsequent correspondence indicated action would be taken if training was not completed, but no such action was taken as per service rules. The Supreme Court noted that the respondent was an untrained teacher appointed on a monthly pay of Rs.40/- and that his services were terminated without notice. It was admitted that opportunities were given but he did not avail them, on one occasion on the ground of a dog bite. The Court observed that letters had been issued by the Government to give training facilities on executing a bond, but he did not avail the opportunity. It held that since the respondent had not undergone training as prescribed, the letter discontinuing his services could not be said to be illegal. The High Court was held to be wholly wrong in finding that a required procedure had to be completed for discontinuance. The Court distinguished the decision in U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad v. Hari Deo Mani Tripathi, noting that in that case the untrained teachers had obtained training certificates and the direction was to fix seniority from the date of obtaining certificates, which had no application to the present facts. The appeal was allowed, the writ petition was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Untrained Teacher - Mandatory Training Requirement - Not mentioned - The Supreme Court considered whether an untrained teacher appointed on temporary basis who failed to avail training opportunities could be terminated without following procedural formalities. The Court noted that the teacher was given opportunities to undergo training but did not avail them, on one occasion claiming a dog bite, and was discontinued from service since 1969. Held that since the teacher had not undergone training as prescribed, the letter discontinuing services was not illegal, and the High Court's direction for reinstatement was set aside (Paras Not mentioned). B) Precedent - Distinguishing U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad v. Hari Deo Mani Tripathi - Applicability of Ratio - Not mentioned - The respondent relied on U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad v. Hari Deo Mani Tripathi where the Court directed fixation of seniority from the date of obtaining training certificates for untrained temporary teachers. Held that the ratio had no application because in that case teachers had obtained training certificates, whereas in the present case the teacher never completed training (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an untrained teacher appointed on temporary basis who failed to avail training opportunities could continue in service without completing training, and whether termination without following prescribed procedure was illegal.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs. Termination of respondent's service was not illegal; High Court's finding that procedure was required before discontinuance was set aside.
Law Points
- Untrained teacher appointed on temporary basis
- mandatory training requirement
- failure to avail training opportunities
- termination without procedural formalities not illegal
- precedent distinguished
