MANAGING COMMITTEE Vs. ANJU CHAWLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 10416 of 2011 and COCP No. 1588 of 2011. In the writ petition, the petitioner-the Management of Shaheed Darshan Singh Pheruman College for Women, Rayya, District Amritsar (hereinafter to be called as 'the Management') has challenged the order dated 12.5.2011 passed by the Educational Tribunal, Punjab (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby the termination order of Ms. Anju Chalwa - respondent No. 1, as Lecturer in Hindi, in the College has been set aside. In the contempt petition filed by Ms. Anju Chawla (hereinafter to be called as 'respondent No. 1') the grievance is that despite directions, the order of the Tribunal has not been complied with.

(2.) Briefly, the pleaded facts are that a post of Lady Lecturer in Hindi was advertised on 17.5.2003. It was mentioned in the advertisement that the post was regular but uncovered. It was on a consolidated salary. Respondent No. 1 applied for the post and was selected. On 5.7.2008, she was issued appointment letter in the scale of Rs. 8,000-275-13,500, subject to the approval of the University. It is mentioned in the aforesaid letter that appointment of respondent No. 1 will be on probation for a period of one year which is extendable for further one year, if necessary. On completion of probation period, she may be confirmed on the post. Vide communication dated 1.7.2009, the probation of respondent No. 1 was extended for a period of one year from 7.7.2009 to 6.7.2010. Vide communication dated 10.5.2010, respondent No. 1 was informed that her services were no longer required as per terms and conditions of the appointment and the letter be treated as one month's notice and she shall stand relieved on 8.6.2010 (AN).

(3.) Aggrieved against the aforesaid communication dated 10.5.2010, the petitioner preferred Civil Writ Petition No. 10291 of 2010 Anju Chawla v. State of Punjab and others before this court, in which notice of motion was issued. However, subsequently in terms of the stand taken by learned counsel for the parties, vide order dated 16.2.2011, the matter was referred to the Tribunal. On consideration of the matter, the claim made by respondent No. 1 was allowed and she was directed to be reinstated back in service along with other benefits as she was enjoying on 8.6.2010. It is the aforesaid order which is impugned by the Management before this court in the writ petition.