DURGA BAL VIDYA MANDIR (REGD.), BISCUIT FACTORY, RAJPURA, THROUGH ITS MANAGER AND OTHERS Vs. DIWAN SOOD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders dated Feb. 9, 1975 and April, 30, 1979 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner by which they have ordered the reinstatement of respondent No. 1 as a teacher. The petitioner pray that these orders be quashed. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) On March 2, 1976, the petitioner appointed respondent No. 1 as a JBT Teacher. It was stipulated in the order that she will be on probation for one year during which her services were liable to be terminated without notice or assigning any reason. It is alleged that there were certain objections by the Education Department regarding the release of aid in respect of the salary being paid to respondent No. 1. On Jan. 1, 1977, the petitioners served a notice on respondent No. 1 informing that her that her services shall stand terminated with effect from Jan. 31, 1977. It appears that on Jan. 28, 1977, the first respondent filed a suit for declaration that the notice was invalid and illegal. Alongwith the suit, she also filed an application for the grant of an interim injunction. Vide order dated Feb. 21, 1977, the Subordinate Judge, Rajpura declined the prayer of the teacher for the grant of interim injunction. On Feb. 25, 1977, the management of the School asked respondent No. 1 to hand over charge to the Head Mistress as she was no more in the service of the School. On March 2, 1977, respondent No. 1 filed a petition before the Additional Deputy Commissioner challenging the communication dated Feb. 25, 1977 under Sec. 3(4) of the Punjab Aided Schools (Security of Service) Act, 1969. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Patiala allowed this application vide order dated Feb. 9, 1978. The management filed an appeal. It was rejected vide order dated April 30, 1979. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Patiala and the Commissioner, Patiala Division, the management has approached this Court through the present writ petition. It has been inter alia alleged that respondent No. 1 had not challenged the notice dated Jan. 1, 1977 but only the letter dated Feb. 25, 1977 by which she was required to hand over charge. The application filed by her was barred by limitation. The official-respondents had erred in entertaining the time-barred application and granting the relief. Even otherwise, the respondent No. 1 having been appointed on probation and she having not been dismissed or removed from service, the application under Sec. 3(4) of the Act was not maintainable.

(3.) Counsel for the parties have been heard.