- (1.) R. K. Mahajan, J. This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16-7-1984 passed by Sri D. N. Shukla, 1st Additional District Judge, Allahabad al lowing Civil Appeal No. 664 of 1978 and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 23- 10-1978 passed by Sri S. K, Srivastava, Munsif IX, Allahabad decreeing original Suit No. 210 of 1974 in between Kaniz Fatma and Principal, Hamidia Girls Inter College, Allahabad and another.
(2.) THE brief facts to understand the controversy are mentioned herein under. The plaintiff-appellant Smt. Kaniz Fatma claims that she was appointed by the Principal of Hamidia Girls Inter College, Allahabad as Laboratory Assistant in the college in December 1971 and was put on probation in accordance with the provisions of Intermediate Education Act. Her claim was that the probation period was for one year and immediately after the probation period was over, she is deemed to have been confirmed. It appears that she proceeded on leave but when she reported for duty on 4-3- 1974 along with the medical certificate. She was not permitted to attend her duties by the defendant No. 1. Thereafter she sent medical certificate through registered post regarding her fitness which was received on 10-4-1974 but of no avail. It also appears as per allegations that she was terminated during the pendency of the suit and amend ment was made in the plaint. The termina tion is bad as she was not given any oppor tunity to be heard and it is against the regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as no charge sheet was given to her nor any enquiry was conducted nor any notice was given. On these allegation, she filed the suit for permanent injunction and declaration. The case of the defendant-respon dents is' that the plaintiff was a temporary employee and was not confirmed, She was not regularly appointed either by the management or by any authority. She could not show the order of appointment. So she being a temporary employee, her services were dispensed with.
(3.) THE trial Court found that the plain tiff deemed to have been confirmed after the expiry of the probation period of one year and as such her termination, without apply ing the regulations framed under the Act, is illegal and inoperative and she is entitled to remain in service. THE trial Court has decreed the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court. The appeal was allowed by the appel late Court and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The lower appel late Court took the view that the appellant was not having a letter of appointment, she was not appointed. She also suppressed the fact of termination order and she was not confirmed and so the view of the trial Court was not correct. Consequently, the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the instant second appeal has been filed in this Court.;