Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1919 (PNJ)

Anita Sharma, S. S. Mistress v. State Of Haryana

2008-11-17

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

body2008
Judgment Augustine George Masih, J. 1. Through this petition, the petitioner is praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 6.12.1998 (Annexure P- 4) passed by respondent No. 5 vide which her services have been ordered to be terminated with effect from 7.1.1999 during the extended period of probation. 2. The petitioner contends that she was appointed as S.S. Mistress by a duly constituted Selection Committee and her name was sent on 16.12.1995 to respondent No. 2-Director, Secondary Education, Haryana for approval as per the Haryana Aided- School (Security of Service) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 1974 Rules). The approval was accorded by the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana vide letter dated 3.1.1996, pursuant to which the petitioner was appointed to the post of S.S. Mistress in the respondent No. 4-D.D. Aggarwal, Senior SecondarySchool, Jagadhari vide appointment letter dated 8.1.1996. The petitioner continued to work with respondent No. 4. As per the appointment letter, the copy of which was not supplied to the petitioner, the petitioner was on probation for a period of 2 years which could be extended by one year. It is the submission of the petitioner that the period of probation was extended by one year vide order dated 17.11.1997 which was got noted from her on 21.11.1997. The petitioner submitted an application dated 6.10.1998 requesting therein that her services be confirmed, but all of a sudden, the services of the petitioner were terminated by respondent No. 5 vide order dated 6.12.1998 (Annexure P-4) on the ground that her conduct has not been satisfactory during the period of probation. It is this order which is under challenge in the present writ petition on the ground that the action of the respondents is a colourable exercise of powers as the work and conduct of the petitioner was good all through the probation period. It has further been contended that the order of termination is without any basis and has been passed on extraneous considerations and is therefore, not sustainable in law and thus, liable to be set aside. According to the petitioner, her services have been terminated after a period of three years and on completion of three years, she automatically stood confirmed as an employee of the respondent school. According to the petitioner, her services have been terminated after a period of three years and on completion of three years, she automatically stood confirmed as an employee of the respondent school. It is further her contention that she has been continuously subscribing to the Provident Fund and, therefore, is deemed to be a regular employee. 3. Upon notice having been issued, the respondents have put in appearance and filed a detailed written statement. Apart from the various objections taken by the respondents in the written statement, the ground which has been pressed into service at the time of hearing of the case is that the services of the petitioner were dispensed with strictly in accordance with the 1974 Rules. As per the 1974 Rules, the petitioner was appointed.on probation for a period of 2 years which could be extended further by one year, which has precisely been done in the present case. The petitioner was duly issued an appointment letter dated 8.1.1996, (Annexure R4/1), wherein Condition I specifically states that she will be on probation for a period of two years in accordance with the Rules which can be extended for such further period as the Competent Authority under the Rules may determine. The petitioner accepted the terms and conditions of appointment and in acknowledgement thereof appended her signatures on the office copy thereof. The petitioner was duly informed about her work performance and was asked time and again to improve her results etc. These communications were also noted by her at the time of her extension for probation period. On 21.11.1997, the petitioner was duly intimated and got noted about the extension of probation period in his service. It has further been contended that time and again the petitioner was intimated to improve, herself and her results and since the petitioner was not showing any improvement and after being adjudged poor in comparison with other teachers teaching the same subjects of same class, her services were terminated. Even her assessment report/Annual Confidential Reports were not good which could persuade the Management to take a sympathetic view. Even her assessment report/Annual Confidential Reports were not good which could persuade the Management to take a sympathetic view. In Para 5 of the written statements, the comparative chart of the petitioners result of the classes vis-a-vis the other teachers for the Session 1996-97 has been given which reads as follows: RESULTS FOR THE SESSION 1996-97 Name Class Subject Result %age in excess of %age Board result Matriculation Anita X-A S.S. 92.86 49.8. Rita X-B S.S. 100 56.94. S.S. Joshi X-C S.S. 100 56.96. Middle Anita Vlll-A S.S. 92.3 24.88. S.S. Joshi Vlll-B S.S. 78.18 10.71. Vinni Vlll-C S.S. 84.31 1584. RESULTS FOR THE SESSION 1997-98 . Name Class Subject Result % age in excess of %age Board result. Matriculation Rita X-A S.S. 95.16 11.24. Joshi X-B S.S. 100 16.08. Anita X-C S.S. 90 6.08. Middle Anita Vlll-A S.S. 66.03 5.84. Joshi Vlll-B S.S. 71.43 11.24 . Sood Vlll-C S.S- 82.05 21.86. VITH Surjit Vl-A S.S. 84,4 Joshi Vl-B S.S. 160 Anita Vl-C S.S. 57 On the basis of the said results, it has been contended that the record speaks for itself and, therefore, no further clarification needs to be given. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings and records of the case. 5. Undisputedly, the services of the petitioner were terminated within a period of three years of her appointment. It has come on record that initially the petitioner was appointed on probation for a period of two years vide appointment letter dated 8.1.1996. The said period was extended by another one year vide letter dated 17.11.1997. The period of probation of three years would, therefore, complete on 8.1.1999 whereas the services of the petitioner have been terminated with effect from 7.1.1999. The basis for such termination has been given as unsatisfactory work" which has been depicted in the chart reproduced above. The said assertion and the comparative result of the petitioner and other teachers have not been disputed. It is a settled proposition of law that during the period of probation, the services of a probationer can be dispensed with as it is this period which is provided to the employer to assess the work of such probationer. If the employee probationer attains the bench-mark to the satisfaction of the employer, he attains a right for confirmation. 6. It is a settled proposition of law that during the period of probation, the services of a probationer can be dispensed with as it is this period which is provided to the employer to assess the work of such probationer. If the employee probationer attains the bench-mark to the satisfaction of the employer, he attains a right for confirmation. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of the Management Committee of M.N. College, Shahbad- Markanda vs. State of Haryana and another, RSJ 1999(2) 552 to contend that the basis for coming to the conclusion that the work and conduct of the employee is not satisfactory should be disclosed to the Court. Merely because an employee is on probation does not mean that the Management has an absolute right to terminate the services of an employee without any justification. There can be no dispute with regard to the said proposition. In the present case, the comparative result of the petitioner and other teachers as has been reproduced above would show that the result of the petitioner was not upto the mark which the Management was expecting of her. In the light of this fact, the judgment as relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner would not be of any help to the contention of the petitioner. 7. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has relied upon two Division Bench judgments of this Court in C.W.P. No. 9646 of 2005, The Managing Committee, Guru Gobind Singh College vs. The State College Tribunal, Punjab and others, decided on 30.7.2007 and C. W.P. No. 14409 of 2007, Simranjit Kaur Walia and another vs. State of Punjab and others decided on 6.5.2008, to contend that when an employee has been put on a specific period of probation, it would always be open to the employer to discharge him before the expiry of the period of probation. The employee during the period of probation has no right to continue to hold such a post in case his services are dispensed with during the period of probation. 8. The case of the petitioner is covered against her by these two judgments.. The petitioner was on probation when her services. were terminated and the respondent- Management has in the written statement given justifiable reasons for doing so on the basis of the records. 8. The case of the petitioner is covered against her by these two judgments.. The petitioner was on probation when her services. were terminated and the respondent- Management has in the written statement given justifiable reasons for doing so on the basis of the records. In my considered view, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 6.12.1998 (Annexure P-4) terminating the services of the petitioner. In the light of above, I do not find any merit in this petition and dismiss the same. No order as to costs.