(1.) AS per the averments made in this petition, the petitioner was appointed as a Teacher in the subject of Music (Vocal) and joined services as such with respondent No. 4 on 16th January, 2012. She was relieved from service on 19th May, 2012. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 27th May, 2012, the respondents again advertised posts for Music (Vocal) Teacher and she participated in the interview and successfully cleared the same and joined as a Teacher in the subject of Music (Vocal) on 9th July, 2012. However, she was not allowed to take classes on 19th July, 2012 for the reasons best known to the respondents. Even no order of termination etc. was served upon her. It is her further case that, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 24th July, 2012. However, no reply was given. Thereafter, the petitioner received a letter dated 14th August, 2012 (Annexure P -5) relieving her from the post of Music Teacher stating that she was appointed as a Music Teacher on contractual basis for 89 days on a consolidated salary of Rs. 10,000/ - per month with effect from 9th July, 2012 but she was found absent from duty with effect from 18th July, 2012 till 14th August, 2012 and therefore, she was being relieved from duty due to long absence.
(2.) CHALLENGING the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner was employed on regular basis on 16th January, 2012 and therefore, her services could not have been terminated without adopting the procedure prescribed for terminating the services of a regular employee. Learned counsel has referred to Annexure P -2 to show that contribution of her share of the provident fund for the months of February and March, 2012 was deducted from the salary of the petitioner and the same was deposited in her EPF account, which supports her case that she was appointed on regular basis.
(3.) THE aforesaid submission made on behalf of the petitioner, on the face of it, cannot be accepted.