DR. KUSUM NARULA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was working as a Lecturer in English in A.S. College for Woman, Khanna, District Ludhiana (for short the College) which is a privately managed College affiliated to the Panjab University at Chandigarh. She has done her M.A. in English, M. Phil., Ph.D. and claims to have teaching experience of about 23 years. The post of Principal in the College fell vacant in July, 1995 and the same was advertised in the 'Indian Express' and 'The Tribune' on 21.7.1995 and 23.7.1995, respectively, inviting applications from all eligible persons. Last date for receipt of applications was 14.8.1995. Response to this advertisement was rather poor and, therefore, the last date for the receipt of applications was extended upto 31.8.1995. Nine candidates applied for the post out of which only three appeared for the interview on 20.1.1996. Petitioner along with Mrs. Prem Handa and one Harjit Walia from Patiala were the candidates who were interviewed by the Selection Committee. The Committee did not find any one of them suitable for the post and decided to re-advertise the same in order to attract more applicants. The post was again advertised in 'The Tribune' on 19.12.1996 and 22.12.1996 and this time, too, the response was not encouraging and consequently the last date for receipt of applications was again extended by 15 days by issuing a corrigendum in the Press. 16 candidates applied for the post this time including the petitioner. A Selection Committee was duly constituted consisting of the Chairman of the Managing Committee of the College, nominees of the Director of Public Instructions (C) Punjab and Vice Chancellor, Panjab University and some others. Nine candidates including the petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee for interview on 4.6.1997. It is pertinent to mention here that this time again no candidate was found suitable for appointment to the post. After all the candidates had been interviewed the Committee initially decided to reject all the candidates as no one was found suitable and it also decided to re-advertise the post. It appears that the proceedings of the Selection Committee had also been recorded but before they were finalised the Chairman and representatives of the Managing Committee emphasised before the Selection Committee that the College had been without a regular Principal for almost two years and that the students and the institution were suffering. It seems that at their instance the Committee decided to select the best candidate from amongst those who were available. It is common ground between the parties that the petitioner was selected as Principal and was appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700 at a starting salary of Rs. 4325.00 because this was the salary she was already drawing as Lecturer in the College. She was put on probation for a period of one year which period could be extended by another year. In terms of the decision of the Selection Committee a letter of appointment was issued to the petitioner on the same day i.e. on 4.6.1997 and she was required to report for duty immediately. She joined the post on 5.6.1997. It is not in dispute that her appointment was approved by the Vice Chancellor of the University and also by the College Sub Committee. The Director, Public Instructions, Punjab also granted his approval to the appointment/selection of the petitioner as Principal on probation. Since the petitioner joined as Principal on 5.6.1997 the period of her probation was to end on 4.6.1998. On 4.6.1998 a meeting of the College Sub-Committee was held in the office of the Principal of the College which was chaired by the Vice President of the Managing Committee in which the petitioner as Principal of the College was also present. Item No. 4 on the agenda of this meeting was "Confirmation case of Dr. Kusum Narula Principal who was selected by the Selection Committee on 4.6.1997 and joined on 5.6.1997". The Sub-Committee considered this item in the meeting and took the following decision:-

(2.) Before we deal with the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to refer to the Regulations dealing with the probation of teachers in non-government affiliated Colleges. Chapter VIII (E) contained in the Panjab University Calendar, Volume I, 1994 Edition, deals with the conditions of service and conduct of teachers in non-government affiliated Colleges. Regulation 2.3 which concerns us is reproduced hereunder for facility of reference:-

(3.) While challenging the order terminating the services of the petitioner as Principal of the College, it was strenuously urged by Shri G.K. Chatrath, Sr. Advocate that before the expiry of the initial period of probation the petitioner was not served with any notice in writing as to whether she had been confirmed or her period of probation was being extended and, therefore, in the absence of such a notice the petitioner automatically became a confirmed employee of the College on the expiry of one year of probation in terms of Regulation 2.3 of the Regulations. The argument indeed is that having become a confirmed employee her services could not be terminated as no longer required and that by the impugned order the petitioner has been removed from service which is contrary to law. Shri S.S. Saron, learned counsel appearing for the Governing Body of the college on the other hand contended that the period of probation of the petitioner was extended in the meeting of the college Sub-Committee held on 4.6.1998 and a certified copy of the decision was delivered to her on the same day immediately after the meeting and, therefore, she had been notified in writing that her period of probation had been extended. This, according to the learned counsel, is sufficient compliance of Regulation 2.3 and that no formal notice was required to be given to her. From the rival contentions of the parties, the question that arises for our consideration is whether the petitioner became a confirmed employee on the expiry of one year of her initial period of probation. Before we answer this question, it is necessary to refer to the legal position in regard to a probationer.