The Manager, Hindu Higher Secondary School vs The State of Haryana and Others

K.P. Bhandari, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Director of School Education, Haryana, Chandigarh, on the appeal of Ram Kumar Sharma, respondent No. 4 in one went position a teacher of Hindu Higher Secondary School Kaithal that under the provisions of Haryana Aided Schools (Security of Service) Ruled, 1974. The facts of this case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the appellant (respondent No. 4 in the writ petition) was selected by the Selection Committee and he was offered appointment as Social Studies Master in Hindu Higher Secondary School, Kaithal. Respondent No. 4 was appointed on 10-12-1979. According to the letter of appointment the period of probation was two years. The management vide order dated 2-3-1981, terminated the services of respondent No. 4 stating that services are no longer required

Respondent No. 4 was aggrieved of the order passed against him and as such being aggrieved against the said order tied an appeal. In appeal respondent No. 4 submitted that he was appoint- ed against permanent vacancy on probation for two years. No formal agreement was executed by him with the management. On 2-5-1981, the management terminated the services of the petitioner by giving him one months notice. It was pointed out by respondent No. 4 in the grounds that during the period of his employment, his work and conduct was satisfactory. He relied upon a certificate issued by the Principal, of the School on 17-8-1981 in which it has been certified that the appellant''s work and conduct in the said School as SS master from 13-12-1979 to 23-5-1981 was satisfactory. On these facts the respondent challenged the order of termination before the appellate authority. The Director of School Education, Haryana, after hearing the parties recorded the following findings:-

"............ ..The respondent who was represented by the Manager of the School was asked to explain the circumstances unless which the services of the appellant have been terminated. The manager instead of giving any reason in support of their action stated that under Rule 8 of the Haryana Aided School (Security of Services) Rules, 1974 the management is fully competent to dispense with the services of the appellant as he was still working on probation. Under Rule 8.2 ibid, if the opinion of the appointing authority the work and conduct of a person during the period of his probation is not satisfactory he may dispense with his services, it is evident from the said rule that the services of the probationer can be terminated by appointing authority provided his work and conduct has not been found satisfactory. In the instant case the management who were given full opportunity to represent their case, failed to adduce any evidence on this point . On country the certificate issued by the Principal to the appellant, certififying his work is satisfactory nullify the contention of the management All this shows that work and conduct of the appellant was satisfactory and his services have been terminated due to some other season which have never been disclosed by the management during the course of hearing."

Mr. J. L. Gupta, Senior Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to persuade me how the findings recorded by the Director, School Education Haryana, suffered from any legal infirmity The scope of the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of certiorari is limited. The Court can interfere only if the Director has acted illegally or without authority of law or there was any mistake apparent on the face of record. The Director, School Education has arrived at a firm finding that respondent No. 4 work and conduct was certified to be good during the period of probation. In this view of the matter, the authority concerned was not (sic) under the provisions of Rule 8.2 of the Haryana Aided School (Security of Services) Rules 1974 to terminate the services of respondent No. 4 during the period of probation if the work and conduct of the respondent No. 4 was satisfactory. Respondent No. 4 was not conveyed any adverse report during the period, of probation. On completion of probation period, he is entitled to confirmation. Recently the Supreme Court has laid down in I C Jain''s case that if the reports of the probationer are not adverse and there is no material to decline his confirmation the compensation of a probationer cannot be postponed. He becomes entitled in such a case to confirmation on completion of probationary period.

The principal of the School has certified that the work and conduct of respondent No. 4 was satisfactory during the period of probation No adverse report was conveyed to him In this view of the matter, provisions of Rules 8 2 of the aforesaid rules do not confer any authority on the petitioner to terminate the service of respondent No. 4 Therefore, the order of termination of services was rightly Held to be illegal by the Director, School Education. There is another aspect of the matter that the school is receiving 95 percent of the grant from the Government, the Supreme Court has recently laid down that such schools function under the governmental control with the aid provided by the Government and as such, such institutions are state for the purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution of India . As the work and conduct of respondent No. 4 was satisfactory during the period of probation, on completion of the probation, respondent No. 4 acquired the right of confirmation. Consequently, there was no question of terminating the services of a person who had acquired the right to be confirmed against a permanent post. The Supreme Court in Delhi Transport Corporation''s case 1990 (5) S. L. R. 311. has laid down that services of a permanent employee cannot be terminated giving one month''s notice even if there was any such agreement with him. In this view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Director, School Education, Haryana

It may be mentioned that at the time of admission of the writ petition, Mr. J L. Gupta, Senior Counsel for the petitioner, gave the following undertaking on 15-4-1982 :-

"Admitted. Mr. Gupta undertakes that in the event of the failure of the writ petition the arrears of respondent No. 4''s salary will be paid to him forth with . Interim stay to continue."

Sd/- S. S. Sandhawalia, C. J.

Sd/- J.V. Gupta, Judge

15th April, 1982.

In view of the undertaking, I hereby direct the respondents to reinstate respondent No. 4 and pay him arrears of salary and allowances forthwith.

Before parting with the judgment it may be mentioned that I heard the counsel for the parties at length. On the request of Shri J. L Gupta, Senior counsel for the management I gave him time to seek instructions and see if there was any adverse report against; respondent No. 4 However, vide my order dated 12-10-1990, I vacated the stay order and directed that respondent No. 4 be reinstated immediately. I further ordered that a copy of this order be given Dasti to the counsel for the parties today. On November 16, 1990, [ passed the following order :-

"The writ petition is dismissed. Interim order dated 12-10 1990 is confirmed. The detailed reasons will fellow."

On the adjourned date of hearing, I directed Mr. Narinder Chaudhary, Manager to be present personally and report compliance of the order.

In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.