L DORENDRA SINGH Vs. MANIPUR PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner having obtained Master's Degree in Science from Banaras Hindu University and Bachelor's Degree in Education from Utkal University joined the Sainik School at Imphal as Post Graduate Teacher in the year 1973. In response to an advertisement issued on 25.10.1994, the petitioner offered his candidature for appointment to the post of Principal of the Manipur Public School. The Academic Committee, after extensive interview, finally recommended the petitioner for appointment. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed as principal and was placed on probation for a period of two years by the order dated 20.6.1996. Thereafter, by orders dated 1.8.1998 and 23.12.1998, the period of probation was extended upto 23.4.1999. The reasons for extension of the period of probation were not made known to the petitioner. By order dated 17.4.1999, the petitioner was terminated from service. The petitioner submitted a representation on 15.5.1999 for review of the decision of the General Body which stood rejected and the decision of rejection was domesticated by the letter dated 24.6.1999. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed this petition for setting aside the order of termination and for reinstatement.

(2.) The Court, while issuing notice of motion, by order dated 17.8.1999 provided that no regular appointment to the post of Principal shall be made till disposal of the writ petition.

(3.) The respondents in their affidavit and additional affidavit raised objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition against the Society which is, according to them, is not a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. According to the respondents, the petitioner accepted the appointment on probation as indicated in the appointment order dated 20.6.1996. He was placed on probation for determining his suitability for confirmation which was subject to eligibility certificate to be issued by the respondent authority. The extension of the probationary period was occasioned as the performance of the petitioner during the period of inital probation was not satisfactory. It was within the knowledge of the petitioner that his performance was being assessed during the probation period. That apart, by the letter dated 23.12.1998, the expectation of the Executive Committee from him was made known to him. After in depth consideration of the overall performance, the General Body in its meeting dated 17.4.1999 came to the conclusion that the performance of the petitioner was not satisfactory and, accordingly, decided to terminate him from service. It is pleaded that the termination of the petitioner from service during the period of probation on the ground of unsatisfactory performance by a non-stigmatic order is not punitive.