NUPUR CHANDAN Vs. INDIAN SCHOOL OF MINES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. V. Shivnath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. M.M. Banerjea, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.09.1995 issued by the Secretary, Executive Board, whereby and whereunder in exercise Rule 7(A)(i)(ii) of the Bye -laws, the petitioners services have been terminated.

(3.) THE other two contentions of Mr. V. Shivnath appears to be of some substance. From a perusal of Annexure 1 it admittedly appears that it is a letter of appointment on a post which was a permanent post because at Clause 2 of the letter of appointment it has been mentioned that the post is permanent. In the heading NATURE OF APPOINTMENT at Clause (a) it has been mentioned that the appointment is on a two years probation with effect from the date of joining duty at the Indian School of Mines and the rest of the clauses, i.e,, (b) to (e), i.e., wherever reference to the word temporary has been made, has been deleted. Even in Clause 2, all words that are related to the status of temporariness are also deleted. In addition to all these, two months after Annexure 1 was issued, an office order dated 23.08.1994 was issued by Annexure 2 which indicates that the terms and condition of source are not only subject to the terms of offer of appointment dated 26.03.1994, but they are subject to the relevant Indian School of Mines Society Bye -laws and Rules, etc. It has further been indicated that the age of superannuation of the petitioner will be 58 years. Thus, from a plain reading of these documents, it is clear that the petitioners appointment was an appointment which was definitely not a pure and simple temporary appointment. That being the position, Rule 7(A)(A)(i)(ii) could not have been made applicable because that relates only to temporary appointments.