(1.) Services of the petitioner, who was working as a teacher in Arya Kanya Vidhyalaya, Ropar, were dispensed with vide order dated 31.5.2002, Annexure P/11 to the writ petition, which reads as under: Smt. Santosh Kumari Math Teacher, Arya Kanya Vidyala, Kharar, Memo You are on probation since the date of your appointment as Math Teacher. Accordingly , your work and conduct has been under constant observations regularly. A review of the results of the 10th class to which class you have been teaching Math since 1997-98 show that instead of showing any improvement the result are going down every year. So much so, that the same have been come down to mere 16% of the year 2000-2001. It has, therefore, been decided to dispense with your services with immediate effect." According to the petitioner, the respondent-Society, which runs the school in question, advertised a post of Math Mistress in August, 1997. The managing committee passed a resolution and the petitioner after following due process, was appointed on 13.9.1997. Immediately, thereafter, she joined the duties. The copy of her appointment letter was duly sent by the respondent- Society to the Circle Education Officer, Patiala, on 7.9.1998 and petitioner was granted the pay scale of Rs. 1650-2925/-. In terms of the resolution of the Committee the petitioner was appointed on probation for a period of one year which was further extended by another year and petitioner successfully claims to have completed the period of probation in the year 1999. Its averred by the petitioner that there was some internal dispute of the respondent-school and the petitioner was made a victim of extraneous considerations with an object to make fresh appointments. She was placed under suspension vide order dated 21.5.2002. Thereafter she made a complaint to the Education Officer to bring to the front her grievance and the harassment caused to her by the management. Then she was suddenly served with a letter dated 31.5.2002 on 3.6.2002, vide which her services were dispensed with by causing a sitgma on her, which in any case, was contrary to the record. She filed a representation before the Director of Schools, resulting in filing of the present writ petition.
(2.) Different written statements have been filed on behalf of the District Education Officer on the one hand and the Society and the School on the other. The District Education Officer has clearly stated that the action of the respondents No. 5 to 7 is contrary to law and is violative of the provisions of Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Schools Employees (Security of Service) Act, 1979. It is also stated that these respondents have disobeyed the orders of the Court passed in C.W.P. No. 13715 of 2000, decided on 23.4.2002. The existing vacancies including that of Headmistress and other vacancies, which may arise from time to time, shall be filled up by old managing committee without delay. They were required to give advertisement calling the applications from eligible persons.
(3.) On merits, no dispute has been raised and even this fact is not dispatched that the Circle Education Officer was initiated of the appointment of the petitioner. As per the written statement filed by the school it is stated that relationship of employee and employer between the parties is governed by the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Schools Employees (Security of Service) Act, 1979, and alternative remedy of appeal is available under the said Act and, therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. As per this authority the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 31.5.1999, in which she was censured regarding her unsatisfactory work. She had asked for apology and she was permitted to continue. Copy of the said letter is placed on record as Annexure R/1 to the reply. As her results were not satisfactory her services have been dispensed with. The petitioner was asked to explain her results for the last four years, which was found to be not satisfactory and she was not taking her classes regularly.