G.R. Majithia, J. - (1.) THIS appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge whereby he dismissed the writ petition filed by the Appellant holding that the services of Smt. Vinod Bala were illegally terminated and she should be reinstated within two months from, the date of the order with all consequential benefits.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that Smt. Vinod Bala, Respondent No. 4, was appointed as Hindi teacher in the Fentonganj Girls Higher Secondary School, Jalandhar, in a leave vacancy on temporary basis on January 9, 1978. Her services were terminated on January 8, 1982. She successfully challenged that order in appeal before the Director of Public Instruction (Schools) Punjab. The Appellant challenged the order passed by the Director of Public Instruction (Schools) Punjab in appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. The same was dismissed vide order dated November 13, 1984. The Commissioner found that Smt. Kamla Dutta remained absent from duty from June 1977. The school was placed under attachment under the orders of the Sub -Divisional Officer (Civil), Jalandhar, and Smt. Amarjit Kaur, Deputy Circle Education Officer, was appointed as ex -officio Receiver of the School. The Official Receiver illegally allowed Smt. Kamla Dutta to join her duties on January 8, 1982. The new Managing Committee passed resolution giving re -employment to her from November 4, 1982 to November 3, 1983. The action of the new Managing Committee in giving re -employment was also invalid. The Commissioner further held that Smt. Kamla Dutta's services could not be regularised after a lapse of five years and true fact was that Smt. Kamla Dutta after joining service, retired from service from November 3, 1982 and in the resultant vacancy created on her retirement, Smt. Parveen Sehgal was appointed as Hindi teacher. Taking note of all these facts, it was found that termination of the services of Smt. Vinod Bala was not justified. The learned Counsel for the Appellant raised following submissions before us, namely, (i) the learned Single Judge could not issue directions for the reinstatement of Respondent No. 4, and (ii) the Managing Committee had no powers to pass resolutions during the period May 22, 1979 to May 17, 1982 when the school remained under attachment.
(3.) IT is not disputed that the Appellant -school was receiving grant -in -aid from the State Government. The services of Smt. Vinod Bala could only be terminated in conformity with the provisions of the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Schools Employees (Security of Service) Act, 1979 (for short "the Act") If the employer had acted contrary to the provisions of the Act, the action was illegal and direction for reinstatement could be issued. Smt. Kamla Dutta remained absent from duty from June 1977. Her leave was not sanctioned by any competent authority. Her re -employment in the service was patently illegal, more so when prior thereto she had been allowed to be superannuated and Smt. Parveen Sehgal had been appointed as Hindi teacher in the resultant vacancy arising on superannuation of Smt. kamla Dutta. It appears that with the change of the Managing Committee, Smt. Vinod Bala, Respondent No. 4 was treated unfairly. The new Managing Committee wanted to find some excuse for terminating the services of Smt. Vinod Bala, Respondent No. 4. The President the Managing Committee of the Appellant -school filed a para -wise reply to the appeal filed before the Director of Public Instruction (Schools) Punjab and in the written statement, they admitted that Smt. Kamla Dutta was absent from duty from May 31, 1978 without leave from the competent authority and the appointment of Smt. Vinod Bala was sanctioned by the department after a leave vacancy became a regular vacancy. It was also admitted by them that the services of Respondent Smt. Vinod Bala were confirmed. In the light of these admissions, it wholly, improper for the successor Managing Committee to terminate the services of Respondent No. 4 and the learned Single Judge correctly exercised his discretion in ordering reinstatement of the Respondent No. 4.;