CHARULATABEN M GOHIL SMT Vs. SURENDRANAGAR JOINT MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is a grievance of a probationer against termination of her service.

(2.) Petitioner Charulataben M. Gohil was appointed on 15-3-1979 as a Librarian run by respondent No. 1 Surendranagar Joint Municipality Surendranagar. Initial appointment was for a period of six months on probation. On 26-10-1979 her probation period was extended for six months. Again on 30-9-1980 her probation period was extended for a further period of six months. It is her case that during the above period she worked satisfactorily and there was no grievance. However in spite of that by an order dated 12-1-1981 her probation period was extended for six months more. It is the contention that though the earlier period was over on 15-9-1980 and taking six months from that her period of six months was over on 14-3-1981 but no immediate order was passed extending her probation from 14-3-1981. On 17-5-1981 when she went on duty she was not allowed to resume duty and therefore she wrote a letter to the Collector Surendranagar. It is her case that she was harassed by some members and respondent No. 2 (President of the Municipality and they wanted to take resignation from her so as to enable them to appoint one Sahenaz B. Chunara daughter of the member of the School Board of the respondent Municipality. It should be noted that this petition was filed on 19-5-1981 when according to the petitioner she had not received any order of termination but she suspected such a move. It is her case that because after her initial appointment was made on 15-3-1979 she continued in service on probation for more than two years and therefore she is deemed to have become permanent. Then it is her case that with a view to harass her and obtain resignation from her false memos were given to her for creating a ground for termination of her service and that the petitioner had replied those memos. It is again averred that from 1979 till April 1981 she was not given any memo and in April 1981 she was given 4 to 5 memos and the petitioner had replied to those memos. All this was done with a view to create a charge of terminating her services. Then reliance is placed on the order dated 12-1-1981 (Annexure D) showing that her work was found to be satisfactory and that her probation period was extended.

(3.) Now it is not in dispute that the services of the petitioner have been terminated and therefore leave to amend was granted and ad interim relief not to appoint any person vice the petitioner was continued. That order dt. 16-5-1981 of termination has been produced by the respondent municipality at Annexure 5 and it terminates the services of the petitioner from 16-5-1981 after office hours.