OMA DUTT SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner claims a direction to be issued to the respondents to treat him as a regular and confirmed teacher. He styles action of the respondent-authorities in putting the lock on his room and making the alleged entry of "Relieved" against his name as patently illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and without jurisdiction. The circumstances under which he has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India may first be noticed.

(2.) Petitioner was appointed as Social Studies Master on August 11, 1980 by the management of respondent No. 1. This appointment was for a specific period and he was to continue in service upto February 28, 1981. Later, however, the management itself extended the period upto March 28, 1981. He was thereafter granted extension for one year upto March 28, 1982 and further upto August 10, 1982. While further extending the appointment of petitioner, the management of respondent No. 1 put the petitioner on probation for the extended period. However, on August 10, 1983 just before one day of the completion of the probation period, he was relieved from his services without even giving him one month's notice as required under the Rules. However, after a short break of 11 days, vide order dated August 22, 1983 he was re-appointed on the same post by the management and was again put on probation for two years. This period of probation, the petitioner claims to have completed successfully on August 21, 1985. However, just on the heels of the completion of probation period of the petitioner, he received a letter from the respondent-management on October 24, 1985 vide which the period of Probation of petitioner was further extended upto November 30, 1985. Although as per case of the petitioner, further extension was of no meaning and consequence after he had completed two years probation yet he successfully completed even the extended period of probation. It is on July 18, 1986 when the petitioner after attending his school went to his residential room which is in the school building he found that the same was locked and on the next day when the petitioner came to attend his duties, he was not allowed to enter the school premises by the school Chowkidar. The petitioner came to know from his colleagues that in the attendance register of the school against his name it was mentioned that he had been relieved. As mentioned above, the petitioner takes exception to the way and manner in which word "Relieved" was written against his name in the attendance register as also way and manner in which period of his probation was being extended from time to time which, according to his contention, could not go beyond three years as per statutory rules.

(3.) The relief claimed by the petitioner is resisted on the ground that he was a mere probationer and as per Rule 8(2)(3) of the Haryana Aided Schools (Security of Service) Rules, 1974, if, in the opinion of the Appointing Authority, work or conduct of a person during the period of probation was not satisfactory, the services of such person could be dispensed with. The assertion that the petitioner was a probationer and continued to be so when his services were dispensed with is sought to be made out from various orders passed from time to time. In order to find out as to whether the petitioner was a probationer or not, it shall be useful to reproduce the said orders.