SAROJINI TEWATIA Vs. UOI AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 10th April, 2003 petitioner who was an associate fellow with respondent No.2-Council for Social Development (hereinafter referred to as 'Council') was informed vide office order (Annexure-B) that her services are no longer required. This decision was taken in pursuance to the Executive Committee Meeting of respondent-Council and in terms of the applicable rules and regulations. Petitioner was given three months' salary in lieu of the notice period as noted in the termination order (Annexure-B). Petitioner had filed an appeal (Annexure-D) on 8th May, 2003 which was dismissed vide impugned order of 12th June, 2003 (Annexure-40A). Impugned order dated 12th June, 2013 notes that a personal hearing was afforded to petitioner and thereafter the appeal/representation was rejected while noting that the service of petitioner has been dispensed with strictly in accordance with the terms of her letter of appointment/Memorandum of 18th January, 1989. The service of petitioner was regularized and as per the service rules, petitioner's service as a 'core employee' was terminable at any time, without assigning any reason, with three months notice in writing or on payment of three months' salary in lieu thereof.

(2.) In this writ petition, impugned order rejecting petitioner's representation is assailed on the ground that there was no adverse entry in the service record of petitioner in her entire career of two decades. It was contended that principles of natural justice have not been followed and the action of respondent in dismissal of petitioner from service is arbitrary as it has been done at the fag of her career. Petitioner claims to be victim of discriminatory action on the part of the officials of respondent-Council who had purportedly acted with bias attitude towards petitioner.

(3.) During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had drawn the attention of this Court to the counter filed by the respondentCouncil to point out that the performance assessment has not been operationalized by the respondent till April, 2003 and in such a situation, there remains no justification to arbitrarily terminate the service of petitioner. To contend that respondent-Council comes within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on decisions in Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India, 1979 3 SCC 489; Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors., 1981 1 SCC 722; Sanghi Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts, 1996 AIR(Del) 74; Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, 2002 5 SCC 111; A.R.Abdul Gaffar vs. UOI & Ors., 2015 147 DRJ 503; K.K. Saxena vs. International Commission for Irrigation & Drainage, 2015 4 SCC 670; Chander Mohan Khanna vs. National Council of Educational Research & Training, 1991 4 SCC 578; Tekraj Vasandi vs. Union of India & Institute of Constitutional & Parliamentary Studies, 1988 AIR(SC) 469; Som Prakash Rekhi vs. UOI & Anr., 1981 1 SCC 449 and M.C.Mehta vs. UOI, 1987 1 SCC 395.