DHARAM SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DHARAM Singh appellant was employed as a junior teacher in the District Board School at Hoshiarpur. That school was along with all other District Boards schools provincialized, that is, taken over by Government, with effect from the 1st October, 1957 and in consequence all the teachers including the appellant were taken into State service and in fact a special cadre was created and for governing the conditions of that service special rules were framed by the Governor. The appellant continued to work as a junior teacher in Government service in various school till the beginning of 1963 but on the 11th of February that year the Director of public Instruction made and order terminating the appellant's services after giving him one month's notice The order said that this was being done "in accordance with the terms of his (the appellant') employment. To challenge the validity of that order terminating his services in this manner, the appellant, Dharam Singh, filed a writ petition in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution which was heard by Grover, J: sitting alone. The appellant claimed that he was on probation as from the last October, 1957 in accordance with the rules of his service framed by the Governor under Article 309 of the Constitution and that the period of probation expired at the completion of three years, that is, last October, 1960, and there alter he was holding the post in a substantive capacity and the termination of his service was consequently a punishment and amounted to his removal which could not have been done without an enquiry under Article 3(sic)1 of the Constitution. The petition was resisted by the State and it was said that the appellant was never a probationer nor did he ever hold the post substantively but that he was throughout a 'temporary' employee and as such his services could be lawfully terminated on one month's notice. Grover J.; felt that the question, whether the appellant was a temporary employee or had been a probationer till 1960, was of no great consequence and he proceeded one the assumption that the petitioner was a probationer. He then found that the appellant had not been confirmed and the only question, punishment or was mala fide and on the evidence the learned Single Judge felt that it was not sale to hold that the appellant had been punished or that the action against him was mala fide. In the result, the writ petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal under clause 10 of the Letters patent.

(2.) MR . Abnasha Singh points out that although the learned Single Judge accepted the suggestion that the appellant had become a probationer with effect form the last October, 1957 in accordance with the rules governing his service, full effect to, house rules was not given by the learned Judge and the full import of rule 6 of the Rules called the Punjab Educational service (Provincialized Carde) Class III Rules, 1962, was missed. To appreciate the argument it is necessary to go back a little. The appellant was a school teacher employed in District Board school before the last October 1957 and it is admitted that the appellant's services, like the service of a large number of teachers, were taken over by the State along with the schools, which were provincialized. The Governor later framed rules for the Service thus created regulating, as the rules say. the "condition of service of the teaching staff taken over by the State Government from the local authorities consequent upon the provincialization of schools maintained by them." Rule says -

(3.) On the completion of the period of probation the authority competent to make appointments may confirm the member in his appointment or if his work or conduct during the period of probation has been in his opinion unsatisfactory he may dispense with his services or may extend his period of probation by such period as he may deem fit or revere him to his former post if he was promoted from some lower post :