Delhi High Court
Pankaj Kumar Jain vs The Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 5 April, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999IIIAD(DELHI)461, 79(1999)DLT345, 1999(49)DRJ525
Author: K. Ramamoorthy
Bench: K. Ramamoorthy
ORDER K. Ramamoorthy, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.8.1995 by which his services were dispensed with by the third respondent.
The petitioner was appointed on the 1st of September, 1993. The order of appointment reads as under:-
"With reference to the letter No. DH/47/EO/ZO/93/E/3429 dated 19.8.93 of the Education Officer, Zone VIII, Distt.East regarding appointment of Shri Pankaj Jain S/o Late Shri H.R. Jain against a vacant post of UDC and the decision taken in the meeting of the Managing Committee of the school held on 28.8.93. The candidate is hereby offered the appointment on the post of UDC on the terms and conditions mentioned below:-
1. The appointment will be on probation for one year from the date of joining his duties. Failure to complete the probation period to the satisfaction of the Management will regular render him liable to be discharged from service without any notice.
2. The appointment may be terminated at any time by one month given on either side, vis. the appointed or the appointing authority without assigning any reason.
3. The appointee will have to submit a certificate of medical fitness from the Staff Surgeon of Irwin Hospital/O.T.D. and the appointee will not be entitled to any pay unless the said certificate is produced by him.
4. The appointee will submit character certificate from two Gazetted Officers along with copies of academic certificate.
5. As per rules notified for the post of UDC, knowledge of typing is an essential requirement. So the appointee will have to produce a qualifying certificate of typing from a recognised agency/authority. Since the post needs day to day typing work of the school, it is necessary to know typing.
6. If any declaration given or information furnished in matters of appointment on the post of UDC, proves to be false or if it is found to have wilfully suppressed any material information, he will be liable to be removed from service.
7. If Shri Pankaj Jain accepts the offer on the above mentioned terms and conditions, he should report to the Vice-Principal within 10 days from the receipt of this memorandum. If he fails to report for duty by the time stipulated the offer will be treated as cancelled."
2. The petitioner was on probation for a period of one year. By order dated 6.9.94, the period of probation was extended for another one year. The order dated 6.9.94 reads as under:-
"In view of the observations and probationer's report of the Head of the Institution and in recommendation of the Manager of the School submitted in respect of Shri Pankaj Kumar Jain, UDC, in the meeting of the Jain School Society, it has been resolved that the probation of Shri Pankaj Kumar Jain, UDC be extended for another one year in accordance with the provisions of the Rule 105 of D.S.E.Act, 1973 and an opportunity to improve his conduct and behaviour be provided to him. Necessary communication may be passed to the concerned employee."
3. On the 31st of August, 1995, a few days before the expiry of the probation of the petitioner, the third respondent passed the following order, which, as mentioned above, is impugned in this writ petition:-
"In accordance with the provision of Rule 105 of D.S.E. Act, 73 and Sub-Rule(1) of Rule 5 of C.C.S. (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, I Vikas Kumar Jain, Manager, Jain Secondary School, Shahdara, hereby terminate forthwith the services of Shri Pankaj Kumar Jain, UDC, and direct that he shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay + allowances for the period of one month at the rate he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his services."
4. The order does not show any reason for dispensing with the services of the petitioner. In the counter-affidavit filed by the third respondent, the point taken is that the third respondent is a minority institution, and, therefore, the third respondent can pass the impugned order without obtaining the approval of the Director of Education; that the petitioner failed to produce the required certificate showing his qualification as typist from a recognised agency; that he did not disclose his real financial position and without disclosing the same, he secured the appointment on compassionate grounds. It is stated that the petitioner is running an offset printing press and also owns a car and he is also an income tax assessee. It is also stated that his work was not satisfactory and the petitioner was given opportunity to improve his work and he did not do that.
5. These averments in the counter-affidavit would show that the order of termination had been passed on extraneous considerations. It is well settled that the third respondent cannot seek to sustain the order dated 31.8.95 by giving reasons in the counter-affidavit when no reasons have been shown for in the order of termination. On this short ground, the petitioner is entitled to succeed.
6. The question whether the third respondent is a minority institution is not relevant in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court and the third respondent is amenable to writ jurisdiction as the Management is doing public duty. Therefore, with reference to the challenge of the order dated 31.8.1995, general principles would apply.
7. The order dated 31.8.1995 is set aside and the third respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.
8. There shall be no order as to costs.