SUMAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Services of the petitioner have been terminated by the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana-respondent No. 2, vide order dated 8.9.2012 (Annexure-P-6) on the ground that she was appointed on the post of Lecturer in Hindi after the ban came into effect.

(2.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the reason for terminating the services of the petitioner is not sustainable in the light of the Instructions dated 21.7.2008 (Annexure-P-3), issued by the Commissioner and Director General, School Education, Haryana, according to which, permission was granted to engage Lecturers on Guest Faculty basis in Science and Commerce streams in 213 Government Senior Secondary Schools. He contends that the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Hindi (Guest Faculty) on the basis of these Instructions dated 21.7.2008 and a specific permission was also granted by the Commissioner and Director General, School Education Haryana to the District Education Officer, Sone pat, vide letter dated 16.9.2008 (Annexure-P-2) and the school in which the petitioner was appointed, i.e. Government Senior Secondary School, Gohana, finds mention at Serial No. 203 of the list of Schools attached along with the Instructions 21.7.2008. His further contention is that the 10+2 facilities which was extended to the Science and Commerce streams also have to be taught Hindi subject and this is compulsory subject and therefore, the appointment of the petitioner was in consonance with the Instructions dated 21.7.2008, issued by the Commissioner and Director General, School Education, Haryana. He accordingly contends that the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order be quashed.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance have gone through the records of the case.