A.L. Bahri, J. - (1.) The petitioner is the Managing Committee of the Markanda National College, Shahbad Markanda (hereinafter called 'the College'). The petitioner is a society registered under the provisions of Registration of Societies Act and is managing the College Respondent No. 4 Smt. Sadhna Kohli was appointed as Lecturer in Mathematics in the College vide appointment letter dated November 13, 1983, Annexure P-l initially on probation for one year which period was subsequently extended by six months. According to the terms of the appointment letter, during the period of the probation, the services could be terminated by one month's notice without assigning any reason. The appointment was subject to approval by the Kurukshetra University. Vide Annexure P-2, the period was extended by six months as noticed above. Vide Annexure P-3 dated April 8, 1985, the College terminated the services of Smt. Sadhna Kohli as no longer required in the College. She was to be paid one month's salary in lieu of period of notice. Smt. Sadhna Kohli preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order before the Director, Higher Education, Haryana, under the provisions of the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 1979. Vide order Annexure P-4, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that services of Smt. Sadhna Kohli were terminated during the period of probation and hence it was not possible to take any proceedings in the appeal. Against the aforesaid order, revision was taken to the Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana, Education Department, which was decided on March 19,1986. The revision was accepted vide order Annexure P-5. It was decided that the order of terminating the services of Smt. Sadhna Kohli was punitive in nature and, therefore, appeal under the Act was maintainable. The order of terminating the services was quashed. Feeling aggrieved, the College challenged the said order in C.W.P. No. 6388 of 1986 (The Managing Committee of Markanda National College v. The State of Haryana and others). This Writ Petition was finally disposed of by Mr. M.M. Punchhi, J. on December 17, 1987. Copy of the order is Annexure P-6. The following two questions were posed in the order: (i) Respondent No. 2, the Commissioner, inherently lacked jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition under section 11 of the Act as it was not attracted in the case of termination of services of a probationer; and (ii) the order was patently illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and against the facts on record.
(2.) Point (ii) as reproduced above was dealt with on merits. It was held that the order of the Secretary to the Government was based on an admission made by President of the College. The record did not disclose recording of such admission and, therefore, the order could not be sustained. In this view of the matter, no decision on point No. (i) as reproduced above was given. It was left to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Government to decide afresh if he would have jurisdiction in the matter or not. The case was, therefore, remanded. The Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Haryana vide order dated February 25, 1988, Annexure P-7 held the order of terminating the services of Smt. Sadhna Kohli as punitive in nature and thus the provisions of the Act were applicable. The revision petition was accepted. Smt. Sadhna Kohli was ordered to be reinstated to the post of Lecturer in Mathematics with immediate effect. It is this order which is challenged in the present Writ Petition filed by the College.
(3.) The stand of the College is that services of Smt. Sadhna Kohli were terminated in accordance with the terms of the appointment letter. Her work was not found satisfactory and during the period of probation, her services were terminated. Smt. Sadhna Kohli was also not possessing the requisite educational qualifications for the post as she is not MA. in Mathematics. Since the order of terminating her services was not at all punitive in nature, no appeal or revision under the Act was maintainable. The impugned order is, therefore, without jurisdiction. On the other hand the stand of respondent No. 4 Smt. Sadhna Kohli is that her services were terminated as no longer required and not on the ground of unsatisfactory work. The resolution passed by the Managing Committee of the College showed that the impugned order of terminating her services was passed for reasons other than satisfactory work. Those reasons related to her conduct and were termed as objectionable. This amounted to leaving a stigma in the order of terminating her services which would be punitive in nature and termination of her services would amount to removal and the provisions of the Act would be attracted. It has also been alleged that she possessed requisite qualifications being M.Sc. in Mathematics. The University approved her appointment with those educational qualifications.;