S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 20th June, 2003, passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 2966 of 1995R. whereby and whereunder. the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, as was preferred by the 1st respondent (writ petitioner), and set aside her order of termination with a direction to the appellant to reinstate tier in service with all consequential benefits. The only question arises for consideration is as to whether the appellant - Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, can terminate the services of the 1st respondent, a probationer, after giving one month 'snotice or not.
(2.) THE brief fact of the case is that the 1st respondent Dr. Mrs. Nupur Chandan was selected for appointment as a Lady Medical Officer and was appointed vide letter dated 23rd June, 1994 against a permanent non -plan sanctioned post. She was placed on probation for a period of two years from the date of her joining the duty and some other condition of service was also mentioned in the order of appointment. While she was on probation, her services were terminated on payment of a sum, equivalent to the amount of her pay + allowances, as admissible to her, for one month, in pursuance of sub -rule (i) and (ii) of Rule 7(A) of the Bye -laws, by an order dated 29th September. 1995. The 1st respondent challenged the letter of termination on three grounds, namely, (a) the power under Rule 7(A) of the Bye - laws could not have been exercised as the same is applicable to temporary employees; (b) her appointment, having been made on a permanent post in a permanent capacity, though with the condition that she would be on probation for a period of two years, the procedure for termination of a permanent employee was necessarily required to be followed and (c) the order of termination is punitive in nature. So far as the last contention i.e. whether the order of termination is punitive or not, is concerned, the learned single Judge has refrained from making any comment because reading the order as a whole it was not found to be punitive or that it was resorted to ay a measure of punishment - The first and 2nd grounds, taken on behalf of the 1st respondent -writ petitioner, were accepted by the learned single Judge, who held that Rule 7(A) of the Bye -laws could not have been made applicable as that relates to temporary employee, Laking into consideration the nature of post i.e. the post was permanent against which she was appointed. The learned single Judge held that the petitioner had right to continue till the age of her superannuation i.e. 58 years.
(3.) FOR determination of the issue, it is necessary to discuss the relevant conditions of service of the 1st respondent (writ petitioner), mentioned m her letter of appointment dated 23rd June. 1994, as quoted hereunder : "1. Nature of appointment. -(a) Appointment is on two years probation with effect from date of joining duty at the Indian School of Mines. 2. Nature of post/vacancy. -The post is permanent. The appointment being offered is in a clear vacancy. xxxx xxxx xxxx 9. Termination of services. -Appointment may be terminated on one months notice or one month 'ssalary in lieu thereof on either side and without any cause assigned during the period of probation or in a temporary appointment." ;