ASHA VIJ Vs. CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by filing the present writ petition has challenged the order of termination dated 1.9.1998 of her service. Mr.C M Khanna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has at the outset contended that the impugned order has been issued without any show cause notice or any allegation of misconduct on the part of the petitioner. He has further contended that the impugned order has been issued without giving the notice of three months as provided under the terms of employment. The petitioner was appointed in terms of appointment letter dated 18.7.1988. Following terms and conditions are relevant for determining the controversy between the parties |- You will be on probation for one year and your services can be terminated after giving one notice on either side without assigning any reason.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been continuously teaching in the school for the last ten years to the satisfaction of the respondents. He has further contended that on the basis of the letter of the Principal of the school dated 8.9.1998 termination of the petitioner in the mid session was not proper. It has been further contended in the said letter that the school can financially afford the current teacher pupil ratio and various other suggestions have been made by Principal in the said letter addressed to the Chairman of the school.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, Ms.Jyoti Singh, has vehemently contended that in terms of appointment letter dated 18.7.1988 the service was only for a period of one year after successful completion of probation period of one year. She has further contended that it was yearly extension which was granted to the petitioner and petitioner cannot claim any substantive right for a permanent appointment in the school. She has further contended that the petitioner's appointment was on the basis of a contract as stipulated in the letter of appointment dated 18.7.1988. She has further contended that the said contract was extended at the discretion of the Chairman of the respondent school and the last extension was granted to the petitioner till July'1998 and thereafter the extension has not been granted and the petitioner cannot claim a right that her contract may be renewed. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that in terms of Clause 41 of the Constitution of School, it has been specifically provided that the members of the staff will be confirmed after satisfactory completion of probation period and the extension so given shall be at the discretion of the Chairman restricted to one year at a time. Clause 41 of the Constitution regarding the termination of services is reproduced below