- (1.) This is an appeal against order dated 25.4.1997 passed by the learned Single Judge vide which he dismissed Civil Writ Petition No. 3461 of 1991 filed by the appellant for issuance of direction to respondent No.3 S.D. Higher Secondary School, Ferozepur City through its Managing Committee to take her back in service as JBT teacher and restrain the said respondent from making fresh recruitment on that post.
(2.) For the purpose of deciding the issue which arises for determination by the Court, we may briefly notice the facts. The appellant applied for recruitment as JBT. teacher in pursuance of the advertisement issued by respondent No.3, which was published in the Sunday Tribune dated 21.10.1990. She was interviewed by a sub-committee constituted by the Management of respondent No. 3 and on being recommended by it, she was appointed as JBT teacher in the service of respondent No 3. She assumed the charge on 8.1.1991. Immediately thereafter, respondent No. 3 sent letter dated 19.1.1991 to respondent No.2 seeking his approval to the appellant's appointment. However, without communicating the decision taken by respondent No.2 and without even terminating her appointment, head of respondent No. 3 restrained the appellant from coming to the school w.e.f. 11.2.1991. After some days, Management of the school inserted fresh advertisement for recruitment of JBT teacher, which was published in The Tribune dated 22.3.1991. On coming to know of the fresh advertisement, the appellant filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3461 of 1991 for quashing the implied termination of her service and prayed that a direction be issued to respondent No.3 to reinstate her with all consequential benefits. She also prayed that respondent No.3 may be restrained from making selection in pursuance of advertisement dated 22.3.1991.
(3.) In her petition, the appellant, averred that the selection made by the sub-committee, which included representative of respondent No. 2 did not suffer from any legal infirmity and, therefore, non-approval of her appointment by respondent No.2 was tainted by arbitrariness and the action of respondent No. 3 to terminate her service without even passing a written order to this effect was wholly arbitrary and unjustified.;