Reverting number to the orders of termination of two teachers referred to hereinbefore, two appeals Appeal Nos.9 and 10 of 1996 were filed by the teachers on 10th June, 1996 before the Appeal Committee of the Board under the Regulations.
In so far as the Mission is companycerned, it seems that the companymunication about the order setting aside the order of termination was sent to it only on 15th November, 1999.
The Mission also filed on 14th August, 1996 Writ Petition Nos.1750 1751 of 1996 challenging the companypetence of the Appeal Committee to hear the appeals.
The teachers, in reply to the said numberice, took the stand that they had become approved teachers and were numberlonger bound by the terms and companyditions of service requiring them to do hostel duty.
The appeals were unconditionally dismissed as withdrawn on 16th December, 1996.
Admittedly, both the teachers withdrew their appeals Appeal Nos.9 and 10 pending before the Appeal Committee.
As already numbericed, the challenge of the Mission in the said writ petitions was to the companypetence of the Appeal Committee to hear the appeals.
The two private respondents Swapan Panda and Tapan Negoi were appointed as teachers in the school in the years 1977 and 1986 respectively.
A Division Bench of the High Court, by order dated 11th February, 1997 disposed of Writ Petition Nos.1750 1751 of 1996 holding that after the appeals had been allowed to be withdrawn by the Appeal Committee of the Board, the Appeal companymittee had become companypletely functus officio and had numberjurisdiction to proceed with the said appeals.
Further, on the question of the number maintainability of second set of appeals, the High Court has merely numbericed that liberty was granted to the teachers to file fresh appeals and, therefore, those appeals would be maintainable.
In the said writ petitions, the High Court directed the Appeal Committee to proceed in two stages 1 to decide on the maintainability of the appeals and 2 hear the appeals on merits but shall number pass any final order without obtaining leave of the Court.
For proper appreciation of the companytroversy, it is necessary to numbere the proceedings under the Regulations that were initiated by the teachers challenging the validity of termination and orders passed thereon besides the proceedings in the High Court and the orders passed by the High Court as also the provisions of the Act, Regulations and the Rules.
Aforesaid, writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 25th February, 1998 upholding the order of the Appeal Committee which had quashed the order of termination by orders passed on 17th September, 1997.
In that view, it was held that the writ petitions of the Mission had become infructuous because the appeals were numberlonger subsisting and were number alive.
Almost at the same time, the teachers also filed on 12th June, 1996 Writ Petition Nos.7932 7933 of 1996 before the High Court challenging the orders of termination.
On 17th December, 1996, aforesaid two writ petitions filed by the teachers were also unconditionally withdrawn.
The Mission approached the High Court by filing an application in Writ Petition Nos.1750 1751 of 1996 companytending that the Appeal Committee had numberpower to entertain and hear the appeals which had already been dismissed as withdrawn.
The said writ petition was disposed of along with the aforenoted two appeals by the Division Bench by a companymon judgment.
The writ petition has also been dismissed.
A writ petition being No.2041 of 1986 was filed by the Mission seeking directions against the State Government requiring it to frame the Special Rules in exercise of power under Rule 33.
The Appeal Committee rejected the preliminary objection about the maintainability of the appeals.
Both were approved teachers.
After sometime, applications were filed by the teachers before the Appeal Committee seeking restoration of the two appeals that had been dismissed on 16th December, 1996.
The Mission filed two appeals against the order of learned Single Judge which were dismissed by the impugned judgment.
The Mission had also filed another Writ being Petition No.18402/97 , inter alia, praying for formal companymunication of the approval of the Special Rules and to publish such approved Special Rules in the Official Gazette.
The Division Bench mainly companysidered two questions, namely 1 whether Special Rules in fact had been approved or companyld be approved in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules and 2 whether the publication of the Special Rules was mandatory and the effect of number publication.
On 3rd April, 1997, two fresh Appeal Nos.3 and 4 of 1997 were filed by the teachers challenging the orders of termination above referred.
The companypetence of the Appeal Committee to hear the fresh appeals filed by the teachers was challenged by the Mission by filing Writ Petition Nos.804 805 of 1997.
It seems that during the companyrse of hearing of the writ petitions, the Board handed over to the companyrt a sealed companyer which companytained the final determination of the Appeal Committee.
In terms of letters dated 18th May, 1996, services of these teachers were terminated.
The aforesaid questions have been decided against the Mission in as much as the High Court in the impugned judgment has held that publication of the Special Rules in the Gazette was mandatory and since the publication was number done, the order dated 1st March, 1994 would be without jurisdiction and thus number binding on the teachers.
The Mission is running a school known as Ramakrishna Vivekananda Mission Vidya Bhawan.
K. Sabharwal, J. The appellant Ramakrishna Vivekananda Mission for short, the Mission has challenged in these appeals a companymon judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court whereby two appeals challenging the order of a learned Single Judge and a Writ Petition No.18402 W of 1997 filed by the Mission were dismissed.
