VIVEKANANDA COLLEGE FOR WOMEN Vs. SIKHA TAPASWI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS mandamus appeal is directed against the judgement and/or order passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court on 24th January, 2014 in W.P.No. 1644(W) of 2009 by which the impugned order of termination of service of the writ petitioner dated 24th December, 2008 issued by the College authority was set aside and the concerned authority was directed to take appropriate steps against the writ petitioner in terms of the show -cause notice issued by the College authority and the reply given by the writ petitioner thereto. The Learned Trial Judge held that the writ petitioner would be entitled to get her salary continuously. Direction was given upon the College authority to pay the arrear salary to the writ petitioner within four months from the date of communication of His Lordship's said order. The legality and/or correctness of the said order is under challenge in this mandamus appeal at the instance of the College authority.

(2.) LET us now consider the merit of the instant appeal in the facts of the instant case. Admittedly the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 was appointed as a temporary part -time employee in the Morning Section of Vivekananda College for Women with effect from 26th September, 2003 to 22nd December, 2003. It was stipulated in the appointment letter issued by the College authority that the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 was required to abide by the terms and conditions stipulated by the College authority. The terms and conditions which the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 was required to comply with are as follows : - "(i) Strict punctuality should be maintained and (ii) 3 days absent means deduction of 1 day salary." Such contractual engagement of the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 was extended by the College authority from time to time till 16th March, 2005. Thereafter though no formal extension was given for renewing such contract, but, in fact, the writ petitioner was allowed to continue till 1st January, 2009.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY the Governing Body of the said College in its meeting held on 20th December, 2008 unanimously resolved not to proceed with the show -cause since the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 was engaged as a temporary employee and she was not appointed in any sanctioned post in the Morning Section of the College. Considering the workload of the Morning Section of the said College and the paucity of fund, the Governing Body of the said College resolved unanimously to disengage the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 as her service was no longer required with effect from 2nd January, 2009. The said decision of the Governing Body of the said College was challenged by the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 herein in the writ petition. We have already mentioned above as to how the said writ petition was ultimately decided by the Learned Trial Judge.