- (1.) The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 17.11.2008 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that there was no legal infirmity in relieving the appellant of her duties on the ground that her work and conduct was unsatisfactory. The learned Single Judge has placed reliance on two judgments of this Court rendered in the cases of the The Managing Committee, Guru Gobind Singh College v. State College Tribunal, Punjab, C.W.P. No. 9646 of 2005 decided on 30.7.2007 and Simaranjit Kaur Walia v. State of Punjab, (C.W.P. No. 14409 of 2007 decided on 6.5.2008.
(2.) Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the instant appeal are that the post of Social Studies Mistress was advertised. The appellant was selected and appointed as per the provisions of Haryana Aided Schools (Security of Service) Rules, 1974 (for brevity '1974 Rules'). After the approval accorded by the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana vide letter dated 3.1.1996, she was issued appointment letter by the D.D. Aggarwal Senior Secondary School, Jagadhari on 8.1.1996. She was put on probation for a period of two years. Her period of probation was extended by one year on 17.11.1997, which was duly noted by her on 21.11.1997. On account of unsatisfactory work, her services were terminated vide order dated 6.12.1998 (P.4) and she was relieved on 7.1.1999. It is, thus, obvious that the services of the appellant were dispensed with within a period of three years, which is the maximum period of probation prescribed in Rule 8 of the 1974 Rules. The aforesaid order has been upheld and the view of the learned Single Judge is discernible from the following paras of the judgments which reads as under :- "Undisputedly, the services of the petitioner were terminated within a period of three years of her appointment. It has come on record that initially the petitioner was appointed on probation for a period of two years vide appointment letter dated 8.1.1996. The said period was extended by another one year vide letter dated 17.11.1997. The period of probation of three years would, therefore, complete on 8.1.1999. The basis for such termination has been given as "unsatisfactory work" which has been depicted in the chart reproduced above. The said assertion and the comparative result of the petitioner and other teachers have not been disputed. It is a settled proposition of law that during the period of probation, the services of a probationer can be dispensed with as it is this period which is provided to the employer to assess the work of such probationer. If the employee- probationer attains the bench-mark to the satisfaction of the employer, he attains a right for confirmation. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has relied upon two Division Bench judgments of this Court in C.W.P. No. 9646 of 2005, The Managing Committee, Guru Gobind Singh College v. The State College Tribunal, Punjab and others, decided on 30.7.2007 and C.W.P. No. 14409 of 2007 Simaranjit Kaur Walia and another v. State of Punjab and others decided on 6.5.2008, to contend that when an employee has been put on a specific period of probation, it would always be open to the employer to discharge him before the expiry of the period of probation. The employee during the period of probation has no right to continue to hold such a post in case his services are dispensed with during the period of probation. The case of the petitioner is covered against her by these two judgments. The petitioner was on probation when her services were terminated and the respondent-Management has in the written statement given justifiable reasons for doing so on the basis of the records."
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book with their able assistance.;