Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt Noorjahan Abdul Shukur Shaik, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher by the Nida-E-Tauheed Trust on 01.06.1995 and worked continuously until 10.04.2007. On 30.05.2008, when she reported back to the school, she was not allowed to sign the attendance register and was verbally removed from service without any prior notice or inquiry. Aggrieved, she filed an appeal under Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 before the District Judge and Educational Appellate Tribunal, Uttara Kannada, which dismissed her appeal on 21.12.2009. She then filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Karnataka High Court. The petitioner's counsel argued that her appointment was not temporary and that even if it were, Section 92 of the Act requires a proper procedure for dismissal or removal. The proviso to Section 92(1) allows removal without procedure only if the employee is convicted for misconduct involving moral turpitude, which was not the case. The court found that the termination was illegal as it violated Section 92 of the Act. The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Tribunal's order, and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and 50% back wages.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Teacher - Section 92, 94 Karnataka Education Act, 1983 - Termination without following procedure - Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 01.06.1995 and worked till 10.04.2007. On 30.05.2008, she was not permitted to sign attendance register and was verbally removed without any show cause or inquiry. The Tribunal dismissed her appeal. Held that termination without following Section 92 procedure is illegal; proviso to Section 92(1) applies only if employee is convicted for misconduct involving moral turpitude, which was not the case. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the petitioner without following the procedure under Section 92 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, is valid
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 21.12.2009 quashed; respondents directed to reinstate petitioner with continuity of service and 50% back wages
Law Points
- Termination of employee without following Section 92 procedure is illegal
- Proviso to Section 92(1) applies only upon conviction for misconduct involving moral turpitude
- Section 94 provides appeal against dismissal
Case Details
2015 LawText (KAR) (12) 44
W.P. No.60817/2010 (S-DIS)
Sri Anant P. Savadi, Sri R.S.Shettar for petitioner; Sri R. M. Javed for R.1 & R.2, Sri M.Kumar, AGA for R.3 to R.6
Smt Noorjahan Abdul Shukur Shaik
The President, Nida-E-Tauheed Trust (Regd) and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order of Educational Appellate Tribunal dismissing appeal against termination of teacher
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of Tribunal's order and reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages
Filing Reason
Petitioner was verbally removed from service without following due process of law under Section 92 of Karnataka Education Act, 1983
Previous Decisions
District Judge and Educational Appellate Tribunal, Uttara Kannada dismissed appeal in E.A.T.No.2/2008 on 21.12.2009
Issues
Whether the termination of the petitioner without following the procedure under Section 92 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, is valid
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel argued that appointment was not temporary and no letter showed yearly basis
Even if temporary, Section 92 requires procedure for dismissal; proviso only applies if employee convicted for misconduct involving moral turpitude, which was not the case
Ratio Decidendi
Termination of an employee without following the procedure under Section 92 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, is illegal. The proviso to Section 92(1) only permits removal without procedure if the employee is convicted for misconduct involving moral turpitude.
Judgment Excerpts
Aggrieved by the order dated 21.12.2009 passed by the learned District Judge & Educational Appellate Tribunal, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, the petitioner has approached this Court.
Secondly, even if her appointment were on a temporary basis, Section 92 of the Act deals with dismissal and removal of an employee of un-aided school.
According to the proviso attached to Section 92(1) of the Act, an employee can be removed or dismissed without following the procedure contemplated under Section 92 of the Act, in case if he or she commits a misconduct, involving moral turpitude, which has lead to her/his conviction by the criminal court.
Procedural History
Petitioner appointed on 01.06.1995, worked till 10.04.2007, verbally removed on 30.05.2008. Filed appeal under Section 94 of Karnataka Education Act before District Judge and Educational Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed appeal on 21.12.2009. Then filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 before Karnataka High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka Education Act, 1983: Section 92, Section 94
- Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227
