Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court restored services of an Assistant Project Coordinator under the Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan in Madhya Pradesh's Sehore district who was allegedly she removed after a complaint of immoral activity in a girls hostel, meant for children with special needs.

A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah set aside the High Court's division bench order which had allowed the appeal against a single judge bench order, which held that the termination order issued on March 30, 2013 being stigmatic in nature, relating to alleged misconduct involving moral turpitude, such an order could not have been passed without holding a regular enquiry.

The court also held the order for termination of her contract, made in breach of service conditions, would come with evil consequences and affect her future employment.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for appellant Swati Priyadarshini, contended she was the victim of malafide counter-action as it was she who had brought to the notice of the authorities the misdeeds being committed at the hostel run by Bright Star, under the aegis of the State, which was sought to be buried by the respondents.

He said the order for removal was clearly stigmatic in nature which could not have been passed without an opportunity of hearing. He said division bench erred in holding the order was simpliciter.

Court was further told the appellant had put in only 5 months and 15 days, while rules stipulated the minimum tenure of service of a contractual appointee will be at least one year in the first instance and two years each subsequently, subject to evaluation of work in the first year.

The counsel also said the curtailment of the tenure of the appellant was in violation of the provisions of the rules of the Rajiv Gandhi Prathmik Shiksha Mission which provided that for persons working on contract, notice of one month is to be served, if their tenure is to be curtailed on the ground of inefficiency.

He also pointed out another glaring fact was that the appellant was assigned the charge of the hostel on January 09, 2013, which was revoked on January 14, 2013 without giving any reason/ground for such action.

The counsel also she was removed by the district level committee in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution, while the appointing authority for her post is the state level appointing authority.

Madhya Pradesh's Additional Advocate General Nachiketa Joshi defended the High Court division bench order. He said that the order does not involve any evil consequences nor is founded on any misconduct. Having been appointed on contractual basis, she has no right of service as such. The order of non-extension of the appellant’s contractual services did not involve any stigma as such, he said. Since her work was found to be unsatisfactory, the contract was not extended, he added.

It was also contended due to non-cooperative, obstructive and negligent attitude by her, it led to education, being adversely affected. 

Taking a bird’s eye views, the top court noted the appellant topped the revised merit list, leading to her appointment as an APC. While serving as such, it was complained she was not performing her duties, primarily not being punctual in attending to her duties, and; not correctly reported with regard to the events in the hostel. 

Referring to clause 4 of the general service conditions, the bench said, "We are afraid that the respondents have placed themselves in a Catch-22 situation. If the order dated 30.03.2013 falls within the former part of Clause 4, as contended by the respondent, on the premise that it is a case of termination simpliciter and non-stigmatic, then one month’s notice was required to be issued to the appellant, which admittedly was not done in the instant matter".

Citing March 30, 2013 order, the bench found it would be stigmatic, as made clear by the use of the words “indulged in undesirable activities amounting to degradation of dignity of Mission”. The top court also noted the High Court overlooked this Clause 4 of the service conditions. 

"Further, in view of the long passage of time, we deny liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh against the appellant as was granted by the single judge. However, this will not preclude the respondents from taking action against the appellant in accordance with law in futuro apropos her official duties on the post in question, if the situation so arises," the bench added.

The court gave three months to the respondents to complete the exercise of restoring the appellant to the post.