MANAGING COMMITTEE RRMK GURDASPUR Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, GURDASPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an affiliated College and admitted to the privileges of Guru Nanak Dev University, responded No. 4. It impugns the order dated 30.5.1978 Annexure P-6 passed by the Director of Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, respondent No. 2, whereby the action of the petitioner terminating the services of Mrs. Paramjit Kaur Arora respondent No. 3 - a Lecturer in Punjabi on probation-vide letter dated 1.9.1977 Annexure P-5, was held to be mala fide and act of victimisation. Respondent No. 2 had allowed respondent No. 3 to continue in the employment of the petitioner and had set aside the termination order Annexure P-5. An appeal against the order Annexure P-6 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the District Judge, Gurdaspur, respondent No. 1, vide judgment dated 22.8.1979 Annexure P-7, which has been impugned through the present petition.

(2.) Before I deal with the real question in controversy between the parties, I find it imperative to notice here some of the facts which are admitted on both sides. The petitioner was required by respondent No. 4 to introduce the subject of Punjabi up to the level of graduation and as such a post of Lecturer in Punjabi was created by it. Mrs. Harjit Kaur Sandhu respondent No. 5 was appointed as Lecturer on temporary basis against this post. She, however, did not possess the minimum requisite qualifications in that she had not passed Sanskrit as an optional subject at the graduation level. The petitioner later passed a resolution on 28.3.1975 Annexure P-1 to the effect that the subject of Punjabi should be abolished as recommended by the Principal since the number of students did not justify the retention of this subject. Notice was required to be sent to respondent No. 5, and the University respondent No. 4 was to be requested to disaffiliate the subject with effect from the academic session 1975-76. The request contained in the aforesaid resolution was, however, rejected by the Syndicate of respondent No. 4 vide resolution Annexure P-2 in its meeting held on 28.6.1975. In the meantime, on expiry of the academic Session 1974-75 the petitioner terminated the services of respondent No. 5.

(3.) As a consequence of the resolution Annexure P-2, the petitioner advertised the post of Lecturer in the Sunday Tribune dated 14.9.1975 and invited applications from eligible candidates. Respondent No. 3 applied for the said post and she was duly selected after an interview. She was initially appointed for a limited period from 16.10.1976 up to 31.3.1976. Later, however, vide letter dated 23.1.1976 her appointment was converted into that on probation for one year with effect from 16.10.1975, i.e. the date of her initial appointment. The probationary period was further extended for one year by the petitioner vide letter dated 24.9.1976 on the ground that her appointment had not by then been approved by the University respondent No. 4.