A.L. Bahri, J. - (1.) RANJIT Singh Petitioner, who was employed as Librarian in the Guru Nanak Khalsa College, Daroli Kalan (hereinafter called the College), challenges the order of the Presiding Officer, College Tribunal, Punjab, dated February 20, 1986, copy Annexure P.12, whereby an appeal filed by the Managing Council of the College under Section 4(4) of the Punjab Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service of Employees) Act, 1974 was accepted and order dated July 29, 1985 passed by the Director of Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, was set aside. The Director had accepted the appeal of Ranjt Singh filed against the order of the Managing Council of the College terminating his services.
(2.) THE facts of the case relevant for determining the points urged are briefly as under: There is one regular post of Librarian in the College. The incumbent went on deputation causing a temporary vacancy Ranjit Singh Petitioner was appointed Librarian when the aforesaid temporary vacancy occurred on November 24, 1980. On October 14/15, 1982, the lien on the post of the Librarian of the previous incumbent ceased. A fresh order was issued in the name of Ranjit Singh Petitioner that he was being posted against the permanent vacancy and would be on probation for one year. Subsequently, the period of probation was extended by another year. It was on February 29, 1984 that during the period of the probation, the services of Ranjit Singh were terminated. Copy of the order is Annexure P7 It was this order which was challenged by Ranjit Singh under the provisions of the Act before the Director who vide order dated July 29, 1985, copy Annexure P.9. accepted the appeal and Ranjit Singh was held entitled to all service benefits. This order was set aside by the Presiding Officer, College Tribunal, vide Annexure P.12 as noticed above. The stand of the Petitioner in nut shall is that under the rules, the maximum period of, probation was provided as two years including the extended period. The period of service on the temporary post is to be included in the period of probation and after the expiry of the period of two years, Petitioner would be deemed to have been confirmed, That being the position, his services could not be terminated by passing a simple order as Annexure P 7 giving one month's notice. On the other hand, the stand of the College is that initially the Petitioner was not appointed against a permanent vacancy. It was only in October, 1982 when Amarjit Kaur was absorbed while on deputation that her lien on the post of Librarian ceased and the Petitioner was appointed against a permanent post of Librarian and period of probation is to start therefrom It was during the extended period of probation that services of Ranjit Singh were terminated on February 29, 1984 by giving one month's notice in accordance with the conditions of appointment letter. No reasons were required to be given for terminating the services of a probationer in such circumstances At the time of arguments, writ an statement on behalf of the Respondents was taken on record along with the rejoinder thereto filed on behalf of the Petitioner. Thus, no specific orders in this respect were passed.
(3.) THE contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is based upon the provisions of the Act as well as regulations framed by Guru Nank Dev University as contained in the University Calendar, Volume II, 1981. Section 2 -A of the Act reads as under: An employee appointed against a vacancy likely to exist for more than one year shall remain on probation for a period of one year which may be extended from time to time. Provided that the total period of probation including extension, if any, shall not exceed two years. Extracts of Rules 3 and 7 from the University Calender aforesaid read as under: 3. The employee will ordinarily be appointed on one year's probation after which he will normally be confirmed if his work is found Satisfactory. It would be obligatory on the part of a Managing Body to notify to the teacher in writing before the expiry of one year's probationary period, whether be had been confirmed or his period of probation had been extended and in the absence of such a notice the teacher would be deemed to have been confirmed. The probationary period in no case, shall be, extended beyond two years from the date of appointment. ** ** ** 7. An employee whether permanent or on probation, or appointed temporarily shall be entitled to summer; vacation salary as under: (a) (i) those who complete nine months service... Full salary (ii) those who complete service for three months on more but less, than nine months.... Proportionate salary on the basis of full salary for nine months. Provided that no employee who has served for less than three months will be entitled to any summer vacation salary. (b) If a temporary or on probation appointment of teacher is made against a substantive post, it shall be on whole time basis and if the same teacher is appointed in the following year also, he shall be entitled to full salary for the summer vacation, irrespective of the period of his service up to the date of commencement of the summer vacation and the period of temporary service of the person so appointed shall count towards his confirmation. Provided that no one shall draw salary for the period of summer vacation from two sources. Provided further that if an employee leaves service of his own accord, he shall not be entitled to summer vacation salary or any portion thereof. The contention of the counsel for the Petitioner is that since the Petitioner was appointed against a vacancy which was likely to exist for more than a year, he would be deemed to have been appointed on probation as provided under Section 2 -A of the Act. This contention cannot be accepted Firstly, Section 2 -A was introduced in the Act in January, 1983 whereas Ranjt Singh Petitioner was initially appointed as Librarian on temporary basis on December 23, 1980 vide order, copy Annexure P.3. This order does not show that the vacancy was likely to/continue for a period more than one year. Secondly, there is no question of appointment of the Petitioner on probation at the stage against a post temporarily falling vacant. Appointment on probation has to be against a permanent post. There is no question of confirmation after expiry of the period of one year or more against a temporary vacancy of a post on which another person had a lien. Confirmation has to be against a permanent post. Section 2 -A of the Act is to be so interpreted to mean that it applies to Vacancies which are to exist for more than one year which would be permanent in nature. Section 3 of the Act provides that no employee shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he is to be informed of the charges and given reasonable opportunity of being heard. As per Section 6 of the Act, the provisions of Section 3 are not to be attracted in the case of termination of services of an employee who is appointed temporarily for a short period only and termination of services of an employee appointed on probation, during the period of probation, on account of his work or conduct being unsatisfactory. Thus, reading Sections 2 -A, 3 and 6 of the Act leaves no manner of doubt that a person, either appointed temporarily whose services are terminated or a person appointed on probation, whose service's are terminated during the period of probation on account of unsatisfactory work, can claim protection of Section 3 of the Act that before terminating his services, inquiry should have been held.;