- (1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners is seeking leave to delete the name of respondent no. 5 from the array of this writ petition.
(2.) PERMISSION, as prayed for, is granted. Amendment shall be carried out by red ink, during course of the day. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that services of the petitioners were initially on contract basis for one year, which was continued till the termination of the contract on 26th May, 2012. Salary was also paid by the respondentGovernment. Moreover, it is stated in the memo of the petition especially at paragraph 1 as well as at paragraph 6 that without giving any notice, the services of the petitioners have been terminated. Even looking to the term of the contract, it appears that one month notice is required to be given before termination, but, no such notice has ever been given to the petitioners. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that by virtue of the orders at Annexure1 to the memo of the writ petition as well as at Annexure1/1 to the memo of the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners, stigma is attached to the services of the petitioners and, therefore also, inquiry ought to have been held by the respondents. Both the orders at Annexure1 and Annexure1/1 have been passed without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and, therefore, impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents submitted that looking to the orders at Annexure1 and Annexure1/1, it appears that behaviour of the present petitioners was not good at the institution and, therefore, contract has been brought to an end. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that: (i) Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were working as Teachers from 2006 and 2008 respectively. Their services have been terminated on 26th May, 2012 by terminating the contract by orders at Annexure1 to the memo of the writ petition and at Annexure1/1 to the memo of the supplementary affidavit, filed by the petitioners. (ii) It appears that allegations have been levelled against the petitioners without holding any inquiry. No such allegation can be presumed to be true and correct. At least, show cause notice should be given to the petitioners. No opportunity of being heard has been given to the petitioners and the impugned orders have been passed. Moreover looking to the term of the contract, it appears that at least one month notice is required to be given prior to termination of the contract. No such notice has been given, as envisaged by the term of the contract. ;