INDRA ARORA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition No.1615 of 1988 and C.O.C.P. No. 507 of 1988 which has arisen out of the alleged violation of some interim order passed in the writ petition and it was ordered to be heard along with the main case.

(2.) What is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is the resolution passed by the governing body of Dayanand Mathradas College, Moga, District Faridkot (for short, 'the College') whereby the services of the petitioner were dispensed with on account of unsatisfactory work during the period of probation.

(3.) Some time in June, 1986 the managing committee of the College advertised two posts of Lecturers in English. Petitioner applied for one of the posts. It may be pointed out that all appointments of the teaching staff in privately managed recognised institutions including the College are subject to approval by the Education Department and since the College is affiliated to the Punjab University, the appointments are also subject to the regulations framed by the said University. Petitioner along with other candidates appeared before the Selection Committee for an interview. The Selection Committee consisted of seven persons including the Principal, two nominees of Education department, two nominees of the Punjab University and one nominee of the College management and the Head of the English Department. A merit list was prepared in which the name of the petitioner was placed at No.2. It may be mentioned that two nominees of the Education department placed the petitioner at No.4 on the merit list but the other members of the Selection committee did not agree with them. As a consequence of her selection, she was offered the post of a lecturer in the usual scale and she was put on probation for a period of one year which period could be extended by another year. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the Punjab University but the Director of Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh did not approve her appointment on the ground that the College had appointed her ignoring the candidates who were at Sr. Nos. 2 and 3 in the merit list. It was at this stage that the petitioner filed the present petition challenging the action of the respondent in not approving her appointment. The writ petition was admitted on 24.2.1988. By an interim order the termination of her services was stayed. Thereafter the College moved a miscellaneous application for the modification of the interim order. The interim order was modified on May 26,1988 and the following order was passed:-