DY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION Vs. VEENA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Questioning the defensibility of the order dated 25th March, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 10274/2009, the present appeal has been preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

(2.) The factual expose' lies in a narrow compass. The respondent-petitioner was appointed as Upper Division Clerk on 17.12.2007 by the Air Force Children Education Society, the respondent No.2 herein. While she was on probation, an order dated 19.3.2009 came to be passed dispensing with her services as the same were no longer required by the society. Being dissatisfied with the said order, the respondent invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 19.3.2009 and further for issuance of a writ of mandamus to command the respondents to take her back on duty and extend the continuity of service along with other benefits.

(3.) It was contended before the learned Single Judge that the impugned order was passed without following the due procedure of law inasmuch as the respondent was a confirmed employee since she had completed the period of probation and the society had no authority to extend the period of probation. In essence, the proponement was that she was deemed to have been a confirmed employee. That apart, it was urged that the services were not dispensed with as per the terms stipulated in the letter of appointment.