SUNITA PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition seeks to assail the order of termination bearing O.O. No. 1484/Adm/Edn dtd. 25/1/2021 (the termination order) issued by the respondent no.2 terminating the petitioner's contractual service on the sole ground of unsatisfactory performance. The petitioner also seeks regularization and extension of her contractual period and other incidental reliefs.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis on 4/6/2014 as post graduate teacher (commerce) on temporary basis till the end of the academic session 2014. Thereafter, on 20/2/2015, 20/2/2016, 24/2/2017 the petitioner was reappointed on temporary ad-hoc basis for fixed tenures, the last one for a period of six months from the date of her joining. Thereafter, the petitioner's ad-hoc appointment was extended on 7/8/2017 till March, 2018. The petitioner was then again temporarily engaged for two terms on ad-hoc basis on 12/2/2018 and 20/2/2019. By a general order dtd. 14/12/2020 the term of employment for all ad-hoc teachers (which would also include the petitioner) appointed till the academic session of 2020 was extended till 31/3/2021. However, before her contractual service came to an end the respondents terminated her service. This was, as stated above, on the sole ground that her service performance was unsatisfactory. The petitioner has challenged this termination order on various grounds.

(3.) Heard Mr. Yam Kumar Subba, learned counsel for the petitioner. It is his submission that the termination order also casts a stigma on her and hampers her career. It is submitted that the allegation that her performance was unsatisfactory was made without any basis. In fact records would reveal that her performance has been satisfactory. It is also submitted that several similarly placed contractually appointed teacher's terms have been extended by the respondents and therefore, the petitioner must also be treated equally.