M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) ONCE again the question of automatic confirmation of a probationer before completion of maximum period of probation has been raised on the basis of the peculiar rule applicable to the case, which required passing of specific order of extension of period of probation. The Management of the S.M.D.R.S.D. College Society, Pathankot (for brevity, 'the Petitioner -Management') has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing order dated 12th February, 2008 (P -4) passed by the Director, Public Instruction (Colleges), Punjab -Respondent No. 2 (for brevity, 'the Director'). It has been held by the Director that Shri Ravinder Kumar -Respondent No. 4 (for brevity, 'the teacher -Respondent No. 4) is deemed to be confirmed with effect from 6th January, 2005 on completion of one year period of probation. The teacher -Respondent No. 4 had challenged order dated 19th April, 2005, passed by the Petitioner -Management terminating his services purportedly during the period of probation in an appeal filed under Section 4(3) of the Punjab Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service of Employees) Act, 1974 (for brevity, 'the Act').
(2.) AT the outset it needs to be mentioned that against impugned order dated 12th February, 2008 (P -4), passed by the Director, a further appeal has been provided under Section 4(4) of the Act. However, on account of non -functioning of the College Tribunal, Punjab (for brevity, 'the Tribunal') we have entertained the petition. It is appropriate to mention that when the matter come up for consideration before this Court on 3rd September, 2008, while issuing notice of motion a specific direction was issued to the learned State counsel to find out as to whether the Tribunal was functioning or not. On 11th September, 2008, Mr. Suvir Sehgal, learned State counsel, could only make one statement that the file had been sent to the competent authority for nomination of the Member of the Tribunal, which was likely to be notified. On our query learned State counsel was not able to specify as to how much time would be taken by the State Government to nominate the Member of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we entertained the petition and have proceeded to hear the arguments. Firstly, brief facts of the case would be necessary for disposal of the controversy raised by the parties. On 27th December, 2003, the teacher -Respondent No. 4 was appointed as a Lecturer of Mathematics against an un -aided post on probation by the Petitioner -Management. The Petitioner -Management has categorically asserted that is is not receiving any grant -in -aid for the advertised post on which the teacher -Respondent No. 4 was appointed. He joined the College run by the Petitioner -Management. The claim of the Petitioner -Management is that his first year of probation was not found satisfactory and the authorities of the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar (for brevity, 'the University') pointed out negligence on his part when he was discharging duty during examinations. Accordingly, the Petitioner -Management resolved by a resolution to extend his period of probation. A letter dated 3rd January, 2005 was accordingly sent to the teacher -Respondent No. 4 under Registered A.D. cover. The aforementioned letter as well as the postal receipt of sending the same on 3rd January, 2005 is available in the original record. The Petitioner -Management has also produced on record a copy of the communication received from the post office showing that the letter was delivered to the teacher -Respondent No. 4. The aforementioned letter is also available on the record which has been sent by the Department of Posts, Government of India, Office of Post Master, Pathankot, M.D.G. District Gurdaspur -145 001. It has been specifically communicated to the Principal of the College that the registered letter A -122 has been delivered to the addressee i.e the teacher - -Respondent No. 4 on 4th January, 2005. The work and conduct of the teacher -Respondent No. 4 was not found satisfactory even during the extended period of probation. The Petitioner -Management found that the approach adopted by him was casual and does not show any sign of improvement despite clear instructions. Accordingly, the Petitioner -Management resolved to relieve him from service on paying one month's pay in lieu of one month's prior notice and order, dated 19th April, 2005 terminating his services was issued.
(3.) THE teacher -Respondent No. 4 filed C. W.P. No. 672 of 2006, which was ordered to be withdrawn with liberty to approach the DPI (Colleges). Thereafter, the teacher -Respondent No. 4 challenged his order of termination by filing an appeal, bearing Appeal No. 5 of 2006, under Section 4(3) of the Act before the Director. The Director allowed the appeal filed by the teacher -Respondent No. 4, vide order, dated 30th April, 2007.;