SUJATHAMMA R Vs. VANI EDUCATION CENTER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra court appeal calls in question the order dtd. 31/10/2022 whereby learned Single Judge of this court has dismissed appellant's W.P.No.23345/2021 and thereby negatived the challenge to her removal from service. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that his client was appointed as a permanent teacher in the first respondent-Educational Institution; she had remained absent only for a short period of 5 days and a plausible explanation having been offered therefor, the removal from service is liable to be set at naught. This aspect having not been properly discussed by the learned Single Judge, the impugned order needs to be set aside and writ petition has to be allowed.

(2.) Learned Additional Government Advocate on request appearing for the 2nd respondent-Joint Director of Public Instruction opposes the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order. She contends that there is absolutely no material to show that petitioner was appointed preceded by selection and that even otherwise there is no declaration of satisfactory completion of probationary period and therefore she cannot be said to be a permanent member of the cadre.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with reasoning of the learned Single Judge's order. The vehement submission of appellant's counsel that the continuation of an employee beyond the maximum period of probation per se amounts to declaration of satisfactory completion of his probationary period, is bit difficult to countenance. True it is, that his reliance on a learned Single Judge's order in the case of POORNAPRAJNA EDUCATION CENTRE vs. PUSHPA, CDJ 2002 KAR HC 306 supports such a view. However, we do not subscribe to the said view inasmuch as, the same is inconsistent with the well established norm of Service Jurisprudence.