- (1.) Through this petition, the petitioner is praying for a writ of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 6.12.1998 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No. 5 vide which her services have been ordered to be terminated with effect from 7.1.1999 during the extended period of probation.
(2.) The petitioner contends that she was appointed as S.S. Mistress by a duly constituted Selection Committee and her name was sent on 16.12.1995 to respondent No. 2-Director Secondary Education Haryana for approval as per the Haryana Aided School (Security of Service), Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 1974 Rules). The approval was accorded by the Director Secondary Education, Haryana vide letter dated 3.1.1996, pursuant to which the petitioner was appointed to the post of S.S. Mistress in the respondent No. 4-D.D. Aggarwal Senior Secondary School, Jagadhari vide appointment letter dated 8.1.1996. The petitioner continued to work with respondent No. 4. As per the appointment letter, the copy of which was not supplied to the petitioner, the petitioner was on probation for a period of 2 years which could be extended by one year. It is the submission of the petitioner that the period of probation was extended by one year vide order dated 17.11.1997 which was got noted from her on 21.11.1997. The petitioner submitted an application dated 6.10.1998 requesting therein that her services be confirmed, but all of a sudden, the services of the petitioner were terminated by respondent No. 5 vide order dated 6.12.1998 (Annexure P-4) on the ground that her conduct has not been satisfactory during the period of probation. It is this order which is under challenge in the present writ petition on the ground that the action of the respondents is a colourable exercise of powers as the work and conduct of the petitioner was good all through the probation period. It has further been contended that the order of termination is without any basis and has been passed on extraneous considerations and is therefore, not sustainable in law and thus, liable to be set aside. According to the petitioner, her services have been terminated after a period of three years and on completion of three years, she automatically stood confirmed as an employee of the respondentschool. It is further her contention that she has been continuously subscribing to the Provident Fund and, therefore, is deemed to be a regular employee.
(3.) Upon notice having been issued, the respondents have put in appearance and filed a detailed written statement. Apart from the various objections taken by the respondents in the written statement, the ground which has been pressed into service at the time of hearing of the case is that the services of the petitioner were dispensed with strictly in accordance with the 1974 Rules. As per the 1974 Rules, the petitioner was appointed on probation for a period of 2 years which could be extended further by one year, which has precisely been done in the present case. The petitioner was duly issued an appointment letter dated 8.1.1996 (Annexure R4/1), wherein Condition I specifically states that she will be on probation for a period of two years in accordance with the Rules which can be extended for such further period as the Competent Authority under the Rules may determine. The petitioner accepted the terms and conditions of appointment and in acknowledgment thereof appended her signatures on the office copy thereof. The petitioner was duly informed about her work performance and was asked time and again to improve her results etc. These communications were also noted by her at the time of her extension for probation period. On 21.11.1997, the petitioner was duly intimated and got noted about the extension of probation period in his service. It has further been contended that time and again the petitioner was intimated to improve herself and her results and since the petitioner was not showing any improvement and after being adjudged poor in comparison with other teachers teaching the same subjects of same class, her services were terminated. Even her assessment report/Annual Confidential Reports were not good which could persuade the Management to take a sympathetic view. In Para 5 of the written statements, the comparative chart of the petitioner's result of the classes vis-a-vis the other teachers for the Session 1996-97 has been given which reads as follows : JUDGEMENT_186_LAWS(P&H)11_20081.html RESULTS FOR THE SESSION 1997-98 JUDGEMENT_186_LAWS(P&H)11_20082.html On the basis of the said results, it has been contended that the record speaks for itself and, therefore, no further clarification needs to be given.;