- (1.) SUDHIR Agarwal, J. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri H. K Asthana learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 5, Sri K. A. Ansari for respondent no. 6 and Sri Pankaj Naqvi for respondent no. 9. The respondents no. 7, 8, 10 and 11 were allowed to be deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 26. 8. 2008 at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since all the parties are represented and pleadings are complete, as requested and agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition was heard finally and is being decided at this stage under the Rules of the Court.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 12. 2. 2008 of Manager, Committee of Management, Hamidia Girls Inter College, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'college') terminating services of the petitioner, a probationer on the ground of unsuitability and performance. THE petitioner has asserted the order on the ground that the impugned order is punitive in nature based on the alleged misconduct. No enquiry has been conducted giving her an opportunity of hearing. THE order is in violation of principles of natural justice. It is also argued that the respondents have passed this order maliciously and arbitrarily. The respondents have controverted the submissions and contended that since her performance was not satisfactory, hence she has been terminated by a simple order of termination. Before coming to the rival submissions in detail, it would be useful to have a brief factual matrix giving rise to the present dispute.
(3.) THE facts, as set out in the writ petition, are that the College is an institution, established and maintained as a 'minority institution' and as such is recognised under the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the '1921 Act' ). It is imparting education upto intermediate classes. It is recipient of grant-in-aid from the State Government. For payment of salary to the staff of the College, the provisions of U. P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as '1971 Act') are applicable. Certain posts of Assistant Teachers in BTC Grade fell vacant in the College. An advertisement was published on 14. 10. 2006 advertising five posts of Assistant Teachers (BTC Grade ). THE petitioner applied pursuant to the said advertisement and was interviewed on 22. 1. 2007. Five candidates, including the petitioner, were selected and the papers sent to the District Inspector of Schools (Second), Allahabad, respondent no. 4 (hereinafter referred to as the 'dios') in compliance of Regulation 17 (g) on 24. 1. 2007. THE DIOS forwarded papers of only four candidates for approval to Regional Committee. He withheld papers of one Smt. Sheeba Chauhan for the reasons not known to the petitioner. Regional Committee sent its recommendation on 5. 2. 2007 with respect to the aforesaid names including the petitioner and, consequently, the DIOS accorded approval vide his letter dated 8. 2. 2007. Smt. Rashida Khan, respondent no. 9, who was President, however, did not allow the Manager to issue appointment letter having become angry for non communication of approval of Smt. Sheeba Chauhan and said that she will not appoint anyone and blamed Principal and other class-III staff of the College including petitioner's husband, who was also working as class-III employee in the College. On 17. 2. 2007, the then Manager Sri Sadiq Husain resigned under the pressure of respondent no. 9 and the respondent no. 9 was elected as Manager also for the remaining period. Under the pressure of Joint Director of Education, respondent no. 9 issued appointment letter dated 17. 2. 2007 to one Smt. Sangeeta, who was also selected along with the petitioner as Assistant Teacher. THEreafter, the approval for appointment of Smt. Sheeba Chauhan was also granted on 21. 2. 2007 whereupon the respondent no. 9 issued appointment letters on 22. 2. 2007 to three more candidates, namely, Smt. Sheeba Chauhan, Smt. Aisha and Smt. Zahida Hasan but withheld appointment letter of the petitioner. In the circumstances, the petitioner made representation on 17. 3. 2007 complaining about her non appointment, though other candidates selected with the petitioner were already appointed. THE Principal of the College vide letter dated 26. 3. 2007 required the petitioner to appear before her along with her original certificates and testimonials. An appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 29. 3. 2007 appointing her as Assistant Teacher (BTC Grade) on probation for one year pursuant whereto the petitioner immediately joined the College. THEreafter, it is said that the respondent no. 9 continued to harass the petitioner's husband and called his explanation on 12. 5. 2007 which he submitted by letter dated 14. 5. 2007 wherein he said that if necessary, she may enquire against false complaints made against him and the petitioner. THE petitioner's husband on 16. 5. 2007 received 3 notices simultaneously seeking his explanation which were also replied by him. THE respondent no. 9, after some time, went to Pakistan and then resigned from the post of Manager, but continued to overshadow the functioning of the entire institution. Everybody was working under her dictates. On 14. 9. 2007, the respondent no. 9 sent a letter to the Principal of the College stating that a complaint was received against the petitioner's qualification and the same is under examination. In the meantime, the petitioner has got prepared a writ petition, which though not filed but sent to respondent no. 9. THE respondent no. 9 ordered that petitioner's promotion and confirmation is stopped for all times tom come. Pursuant to the respondent no. 9's letter, the Principal also submitted a report making her recommendation that the petitioner is not fit for confirmation. THEreafter, based on the letter dated 14. 9. 2007 and the Principal's report, the impugned order of termination has been passed on 12. 2. 2008, which is clearly punitive since the foundation of termination of the petitioner is the alleged act of preparation of writ petition, which annoyed the respondent no. 9 and that is the only cause and foundation for terminating her services. It is contended that the impugned order of termination is founded on the alleged act of misconduct on the part of the petitioner treated to be a serious misconduct by the respondents. It is also contended that the impugned order is result of mala fide on the part of respondent no. 9 and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel Shri Khare further said that in any case the termination is arbitrary and malicious in law. In support of submission, he placed reliance on the Apex Court's decisions in Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre For Basic Sciences and others 1999 (3) SCC 60, Nar Singh Pal Vs. Union of India and others AIR 2000 SC 1401, Chandra Prakash Shahi Vs. State of U. P. and others 2000 (5) SCC 152, A. P. State Federation of Cooperative Spinning Mills Ltd. and another Vs. P. V. Swaminathan 2001 (3) JT 530 and Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan Vs. Mehbub Alam Laskar JT 2008 (2) SC 163.;