SHALINI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 22.7.2002 passed by the Manager, Arya Vidya Sabha Regd. Sonepat, terminating the services of the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed as J.B.T. teacher in the grade of Rs. 1200-2040/- vide letter dated 7.11.1998. The terms of appointment did not postulate or specify any period of probation. She was appointed on temporary basis for a period of two years and such period could be extended. Her services, however, were terminated vide the impugned order by giving a reason that her appointment has not been approved by the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana, Chandigarh and as such, the management had decided in this meeting dated 7.7.2002 to terminate the services. However, in the same letter it was also asked that the petitioner could furnish an explanation. It has been contended in the writ petition that the services of the petitioner have been terminated without approval of the Director and the order is punitive in its nature and has been passed arbitrarily; and in violation to the provisions of the Haryana Aided Schools (Security of Services Act, 1971).

(2.) From the impugned order it is evident that the Director has not approved the appointment of the petitioner and as a result thereto, the Managing Committee after perusing the records of more than three years, have removed/terminated the services of the petitioner.

(3.) The approval by the Director cannot be inferred. Order has to be an appropriate order granting or refusing to grant approval for such appointment. Under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 8 of the Haryana School Education Act, 1995, which repealed the Haryana Aided Schools (Security of Services) Act, even removal/termination has to be with the approval of the Director.