Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. On the basis of a circular dated 18th May. '81 (which had been issued by the Joint Director of College Education, Rajasthan), the petitioner requested the College Authorities that he was entitled to appointment on permanent basis with effect from the date of his joining as Lecturer in Political Science, i.e. 5th Nov.,'86 and that he an agreement should be treated as permanent lecturer with effect from 5th Nov.,'87. An agreement (Ex.6) was executed by the petitioner on 1st Aug. '87. On 1st Aug. '88, the Secretary pf the College, by order (Annex. 7), extended the probationary period of the petitioner for one year, with effect from 1st Aug.,'88 on the same terms & conditions, as were contained in the appointment-letter dated 5th Oct. '87.

4. It is alleged that on 30th July, '89, the petitioner was told by the Secretary of the College that his services were no more required in the College after 31st July, '89. The petitioner asked for issuing him termination-letter. But, the Secretary of the College gave oral termination-order terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 1st Aug.,'89.

5. It appears from Annexure-8, dated 31st July,'89, issued by the Principal of the College that the Governing Body of the College, in its meeting, held on 29th July,'89, had assessed the performance of the petitioner during the probationary period, and had found it to be quite unsatisfactoiy. It was found that the petitioner had neglected his duties and behaved in indisciplined manner with the students and also with the principal of the College. Thus, his performance was considered to be quite unsatisfactoiy, and the Governing Body of the College did not find him competent and otherwise suitable. Consequently, it decided to terminate the appointment of the petitioner and to relieve him of his services on 21st July,'89, An account-payee cheque for Rs. 5500/-, dated 31st July,'89, as salary for the month of July,'89 and one month's notice-pay, was enclosed with the letter (Annexure-8), and was sent by the Principal, of the College, to the petitioner.

43. Condition No. 15 in Rule-3 of the Rules, provides an institution shall not appoint staff on temporary basis for more than two years, without the permission of the Director of Education. The petitioner was appointed on temporary basis only in relation to the period from 5th Nov., 1986 to 31st July, 1987.

Rule-4 of the rules states that the conditions of services of every member of the teaching and ministerial staff appointed substantively shall be governed by an agreement executed by him and the Governing Body/Council, or the Managing Committee, in the form given in Appendix-III. The petitioner had executed that agreement. The agreement clearly provided that the petitioner's employment shall begin from 1st Aug., 1987, and that he shall be employed in the first instance for one year of probation, and that the period of probation shall in no case, exceed two years. If at the end of two years, the petitioner was not found to be competent or otherwise suitable, his appointment would be terminated. If he has confirmed in his appointment at the end of the period of probation, he shall be employed on a monthly salary of Rs. 700/- in the grade of Rs. 700-1600. This term in the agreement (Annex.6) was on the lines provided in the form of agreement (Appendix-3) to the Grant-in-Aid Rules. Clause (9) of the agreement provided that if within three months of the expiry of the period of probation, no notice of termination of the agreement or of an extension of the period of probation was received by the lecturer, he was to be treated as confirmed in his appointment. The probationary period of one year was to end on 31st July, 1988. By Annexure-R3, the probationary period of the petitioner was extended with effect from 1st Aug., 1988, for one year. This could be done under Clause (1) of the agreement. Just on the last date when the extended period of probation was to expire, the Principal of the College, in accordance with the decision taken in the meeting of the Governing Body, held on 29th July, 1989, terminated the services of the petitioner, on the expiry of the extended period of his probation on 31st July, 1988. The communication regarding the termination of the services of the petitioner is Annexure R. 1/15. In this letter, it was mentioned that the petitioner had been appointed Lecturer in Political Science with effect from 1st Aug., 1987. On the expiry of the said probationary period, the same was further extended for one year more with effect from 1st Aug., 1988, for period upto 31st July, 1989. It was noted that the Governing Body in its meeting held on 29th July, 1989, assessed the performance of the petitioner during his probationary period, and found it to be quite unsatisfactory. It was found that the petitioner neglected his duties and behaved in indisciplined manner with the students and with the Principal. His performance was quite unsatisfactory and the Governing Body did not find him competent or otherwise suitable, hence, the petitioner's services were terminated. This was done under Clause (1) of the agreement, which provided that if at the end of the period of two years, a teacher was not found competent or otherwise suitable, his appointment shall be terminated. Thus, the termination of the petitioner was in pursuance of the terms & conditions of the contract entered into by the petitioner in Seth Motilal College, Jhunjhunu. It is only when a lecturer is dismissed for insubordination, deliberate negligence in duty and serious misconduct that the lecturer is entitled to apply for a review of the decision, to the Managing Committee. The chargesheet and opportunity of hearing under and in pursuance of Clause (e) of Rule-4 of the Rules and Clause (7) of the agreement, has to be given when there is dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of the lecturer. The public law enters into contractual field when there is dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of the staff of the institution as a matter of punishment and not where there is only termination services of a lecturer, when he has not been found to be competent or otherwise suitable to be confirmed in his appointment in pursuance of the agreement. There is no quasi-judicial remedy provided to a lecturer whose appointment is terminated at the end of the probationary period on the ground that he was not found to be competent or otherwise suitable. Non-confirmation of a probationer is not a punishment. The element of public law does not enter into such a case. Reference in this connection may be made to the decisions in the cases of:

1. Purshottam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India .
2. State of Orissa and Anr. v. Ramnarayan Das .
3. State of Punjab and Anr. v. Sukhraj Bahadur .
4. Ramgopal Chaturvedi v. State of M.P. .
5. State of Gujrat v. Akhilesh C. Bhagwati (1970) 4 SCC 482.

In my opinion, the present one was a case where the intention was clearly to discharge the petitioner and not to punish him. Assessment of the work of a probationer, of the probationary period, has to be made. All that was entered in Annexure-R.1/15 was that the performance of the petitioner was unsatisfactory. He had neglected his duties and had behaved in undisciplined manner with the students and with the Principal of the College. Thus, his performance was unsatisfactory. There was only evaluation of the performance of the petitioner, during his probationary period, and it did not cast a stigma against the petitioner.