KUSUM SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner who is M.A.B.Ed., B.Lib. Science, and had done M.A.in Instrumental Music and B.Ed., was working as librarian in privately managed institution, namely Vidya Devi Jindal School, Delhi Road, Hissar. Pursuant to advertisement issued by Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (in short, the Samiti) which an autonomous body under the Ministry of Human Resource Development, petitioner applied for the post of librarian. One of the conditions was that a person already in service can be considered for permanent absorption if he/she can be relieved on deputation for a period of two years. Petitioner after being interviewed along with others, was selected for the post of Librarian in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600/- plus allowances, and was posted as such at Navodaya Vidyalaya, Jhajjar. In her appointment letter dated 1.8.1988, it was specifically mentioned that her appointment would be on transfer/deputation for a period of two years in the first instance, with possibility of permanent absorption. The deputation period of two years expired on 17.8.1990, but petitioner was not absorbed in service and further extension was sought from her parent school. Vide letter dated 16.11.1990, she was allowed extension upto 30.4.1991. Her parent school informed the Samiti that no further extension about retention of lien in the parent school shall be granted. Till the end of April, 1991, Samiti did not communicate either with the petitioner or with her parent school with regard to her absorption as librarian. However, vide letter dated 8.6.1991, a request was again made for extending the period of deputation, but the parent school vide letter dated 22.6.1991, informed the Samiti that as per the terms of deputation, lien of the petitioner with the school was only upto 30.4.1990 but on request of Samiti, the same was extended upto 30.4.1991. It was, thus, requested that the school be not pressed for extension of deputation period, meaning thereby that deputation period was not extended. The school vide letter dated 24.6.1991 addressed to the Deputy Director, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Jaipur, with copy addressed to the petitioner, informed that vide order dated 3/18.6.1991, petitioner has been ordered to be repatriated to her parent department with immediate effect on completion of deputation period. Petitioner was further directed to report to her parent department for her posting. Parent department refused to take back the petitioner and in this respect, letter dated 16.7.1991 was written to the petitioner. In that letter, reference was also made with regard to communication to the Samiti. In this petition, petitioner is impugning order dated 3/18.6.1991 whereby she has been ordered to be repatriated, being illegal arbitrary and nonest.

(2.) Written statement has been filed by Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Jhajijar (Rohtak) on behalf of the respondents, in which it has been stated that petitioner has been repatriated to her parent department on the basis of order dated 30.6.1991. It has also been stated that till the time of writing of letter by the Society, parent school of the petitioner did not inform that it had regularised the services of other Librarian in place of the petitioner. In regard to her case for permanent absorption with the Society, it has been stated that she was not found suitable as such and lacked initiative and drive and out of 15 performance factors she was found lacking in 11 factors.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in this case, the petitioner was sent on deputation for a period of two years and on the request made by the Samiti, it was extended by the parent department upto 30.4.1991 but it was made clear to the Samiti that thereafter, her lien shall stand terminated. According to the counsel, the petitioner has been ordered to be repatriated vide order dated 30.6.1991, i.e. after her lien had come to an end and her parent department has refused to take her in the department. He has referred to Annexure R-1 attached to written statement, to contend that the stand taken by the Samiti that she lacked initiative and drive is not borne from the record because in column No.6 'Does not meet requirement of this job', nothing has been mentioned rather in the performance report, in some factors she has been found to have just met the requirement and in some has partly met the requirement. Counsel has placed on record letters dated 8.4.1994, 16.9.1994, 1.10.1994, 10.12.1994 and 16.8.1994, whereby the Samiti has decided to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation/absorption as librarian in accordance with prevalent rules and regulations of the Samiti, provided she gives an undertaking to withdraw her writ petition unconditionally.