ANJU PAHWA Vs. CHILD EDUCATION SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Teacher by vocation, by this writ petition seeks to challenge the validity of the order of termination of service dated 3.9.1993, issued by respondent No.3 as also the order of the Appellate School Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal"), dated 1.8.1994, dismissing her appeal bearing No.36/93, against the order of termination. Apart from seeking quashing of the impugned orders of termination dated 3.9.1993 and order dated 1.8.1994 of the Tribunal, dismissing the appeal, petitioner seeks a direction for reinstatement, with all attendant consequential benefits.

(2.) The facts in brief leading to the filing of the present writ petition may be noticed; -'

(3.) The petitioner claims that in April, 1992, respondent No.3 school at NOIDA was opened. The petitioner, who was having a small child at that time and was living in Mayur Vihar, sought a transfer to the N01 DA School, since the same was close to her residence, enabling her to have some more time with her child. The Principal designate of the Montessori Branch of respondent No.3, endorsed and supported the said proposal. Respondents No.1 & 2 readily agreed for the same stating the same to be in the interest of the new school as well as of the petitioner. The petitioner claims that she was induced to submit a letter of resignation, requesting waiver of three months notice, so as to expedite the transfer of the petitioner to the NOIDA School. The petitioner claims that she was assured that the resignation letter was for record purposes and would not be used in any manner to affec t her permanent status, seniority and her emoluments which would remain protected on transfer. The petitioner claims that she accordingly gave the letter of resignation on 21.4.1992 and in good faith joined duties at NOIDA branch of respondent No.2 on 22.4.1992. Respondent No.3 issued an appointment letter dated 26.4.1992, in terms of which the petitioner had applied for the appointment on 9.4.1992 and having been interviewed she was placed on probation for a period of one year. The petitioner claims she protested against the said letter, however, she was assured by the Incharge of respondent No.3; that the standard appointment letter had been issued to meet audit requirements and that probational clause would not be applicable to her. However, she was granted all the benefits of transfer, namely, her earned leave, protection of pay, continuity of service, benefits of accumulated leave, transfer of her service book, continuance other provident fund account with respondent No.2 as well as salary for summer vacation, whi was not available to probationers.