Sukhdev Singh, J. - (1.) (Oral) - This is a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India by Dr. (Mrs.) Rajni Kapoor, seeking the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to comply with Rule 12.1 of the Rules framed by the Kurukshtra University, contained in the Calendar. It has arisen in the following circumstances.
(2.) The petitioner after having obtained a Doctorate in Hindi Literature from the Allahabad University, was appointed as a Lecturer in Hindi-cum-Sanskrit in the Adarsh Mahila Mahavidalaya, Bhiwani, on probation for a period of one year. On the completion of one year, the probation period was extended by another year. She served the College for about 2 years to the best of her ability and capability. She was not covered any adverse report or comment on her work and conduct during this period of her probation. She was shocked to receive a letter dated 16th May, 1977 informing her that her services were no more required in the College after 16th June, 1977 as her work was not satisfactory. It was intimated that this letter should be treated as one month's notice. The petitioner made a representation against her termination to the Management of the College, but to no effect. She was constrained to make representation to the Vice-Chancellor of the University against the termination of her services in which she prayed that her case regarding wrongful termination of services be referred to arbitration in terms of of Rule 12.1 of the Kurukshetra University. A copy of this representation is annexed as P-6 to the writ petition. It was stated in this representation that she had a bright academic career She was not communicated any adverse remarks on her work and conduct during the period of her service nor was her explanation called with regard to her alleged unsatisfactory work. It is pertinent to note that there is no allegation of mala fide against the Management in this representation. The University sought comments from the College on the representation of the petitioner. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the University informed the petitioner vide letter dated July 4, 1977 that since her services had been terminated during the probation period, the University was not in a position to help her. She made another representation to the University, but was informed that she should treat the previous decision of the University as final. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
(3.) Shri Ram Rang, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the services of the petitioner, who was a brilliant teacher, have been terminated in flagrant disregard of the Rules of the University. These Rules are statutory in nature. The infraction of these statutory Rules by the College and the University have occasioned failure of justice to the petitioner.;