- (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Director of School Education, Haryana, Chandigarh, on the appeal of Ram Kumar Sharma, respondent No. 4 in one went position a teacher of Hindu Higher Secondary School Kaithal that under the provisions of Haryana Aided Schools (Security of Service) Ruled, 1974. The facts of this case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the appellant (respondent No. 4 in the writ petition) was selected by the Selection Committee and he was offered appointment as Social Studies Master in Hindu Higher Secondary School, Kaithal. Respondent No. 4 was appointed on 10-12-1979. According to the letter of appointment the period of probation was two years. The management vide order dated 2-3-1981, terminated the services of respondent No. 4 stating that services are no longer required
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 4 was aggrieved of the order passed against him and as such being aggrieved against the said order tied an appeal. In appeal respondent No. 4 submitted that he was appointed against permanent vacancy on probation for two years. No formal agreement was executed by him with the management. On 2-5-1981, the management terminated the services of the petitioner by giving him one months notice. It was pointed out by respondent No. 4 in the grounds that during the period of his employment, his work and conduct was satisfactory. He relied upon a certificate issued by the Principal, of the School on 17-8-1981 in which it has been certified that the appellant's work and conduct in the said School as SS master from 13-12-1979 to 23-5-1981 was satisfactory. On these facts the respondent challenged the order of termination before the appellate authority. The Director of School Education, Haryana, after hearing the parties recorded the following findings:". . . . . . . . . . . . . . The respondent who was represented by the Manager of the School was asked to explain the circumstances unless which the services of the appellant have been terminated. The manager instead of giving any reason in support of their action stated that under Rule 8 of the Haryana Aided School (Security of Services) Rules, 1974 the management is fully competent to dispense with the services of the appellant as he was still working on probation. Under Rule 8. 2 ibid, if the opinion of the appointing authority the work and conduct of a person during the period of his probation is not satisfactory he may dispense with his services, it is evident from the said rule that the services of the probationer can be terminated by appointing authority provided his work and conduct has not been found satisfactory. In the instant case the management who were given full opportunity to represent their case, failed to adduce any evidence on this point. On country the certificate issued by the Principal to the appellant, certififying his work is satisfactory nullify the contention of the management All this shows that work and conduct of the appellant was satisfactory and his services have been terminated due to some other season which have never been disclosed by the management during the course of hearing. "
(3.) MR. J. L. Gupta, Senior Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to persuade me how the findings recorded by the Director, School Education Haryana, suffered from any legal infirmity The scope of the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of certiorari is limited. The Court can interfere only if the Director has acted illegally or without authority of law or there was any mistake apparent on the face of record. The Director, School Education has arrived at a firm finding that respondent No. 4 work and conduct was certified to be good during the period of probation. In this view of the matter, the authority concerned was not (sic) under the provisions of Rule 8. 2 of the Haryana Aided School (Security of Services) Rules 1974 to terminate the services of respondent No. 4 during the period of probation if the work and conduct of the respondent No. 4 was satisfactory. Respondent No. 4 was not conveyed any adverse report during the period, of probation. On completion of probation period, he is entitled to confirmation. Recently the Supreme Court has laid down in I C Jain's case that if the reports of the probationer are not adverse and there is no material to decline his confirmation the compensation of a probationer cannot be postponed. He becomes entitled in such a case to confirmation on completion of probationary period.;