BAMINIKUTTY THOMAS Vs. MANAGER MAR THOMA COLLEGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Petition is directed against the order of the Vice Chancellor, University of Kerala, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of termination of her service as a Lecturer in the 3rd Respondent's college. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Lecturer in Zoology on 2-6-1970. The copy of the appointment order is filed as Ext. P1. The appointment was for a specified period from 2-6-1970 to 31-3-1971. On the expiry of this period she was discharged. She filed an appeal complaining about this discharge. According to her, she was appointed against a substantive vacancy and the provisions of S.55 of the Kerala University Act, 1969, as amended by Act 13 of 1971, enable her to continue in service and her services can be terminated only as provided for in that section. The Vice Chancellor took the view that as her service in the College was for less than an year there is no scope for the application of the provisions of S.55 and so he dismissed the appeal. Correctness of this decision is challenged here.

(2.) According to the petitioner, every teacher appointed in a private college shall be on probation for the period of one year within a period of two years. There is no case for the management that her services were terminated on finding that she is unsuitable to hold the post. Her services have been terminated not on the basis of a disciplinary action also. So, according to her, on satisfactory completion of probation she should be confirmed in the post as she was appointed in a substantive vacancy. The management has taken up the stand that as she was appointed for a term of less than one year, which they are entitled to, her services are terminated only on the expiry of the period and nothing in S.55 prohibits such a step. The relevant clauses of S.55 referred to in the course of the argument are sub-s.(1) and (4) which are in the following terms:

(3.) S.55(1) does not prohibit the right of the management to appoint a teacher for a period less than one year though the appointment is against a substantive vacancy. That sub-section only means that a teacher must be on probation for a period of at least one year. If be is in service for one year or more he gets a right for confirmation. That is the scope of sub-s.(4). old as well as new. That sub-section has application only to a situation of successful completion of probation. If the probation has to be for a minimum period of at least one year, there is no scope for applying sub-s.(4). The amendment of the Act during the period of the appointment in this case does not alter the situation. As sub-s.(4) has no application here, the duration of the appointment must be governed by the terms of the appointment order. The appointment order was only for a period of less than an year. Therefore, in the absence of any restriction, express or implied, against an appointment for a period of less than one year the management will be perfectly within its rights and will not be violating any law in discharging a teacher after the period of appointment. That is the case here. Since sub-s.(4) has no application, the Vice Chancellor's order dismissing the appeal is correct and does not call for any interference.