Civil Writ Petition No.4270 of 1993 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 09, 2011 Mrs.Sudha Agnihotri ...Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.C.L.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4. Mr.Deepak Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. On 3.4.1993, respondent No.3 issued a show cause notice for termination of services of the petitioner. The petitioner accordingly approached this court through the present writ petition seeking direction for quashing of the said notice and for further Civil Writ Petition No.4270 of 1993 : 2 : direction to the respondents not to terminate the services of the petitioner without following the procedure as given under Section 3 of the Haryana Aided Schools (Security of Service) Act, 1971. The petitioner claims that she was appointed as a Lecturer in Physics on permanent/regular basis with respondent No.3-Hindu Girls Senior Secondary School, Kalka, District Ambala. Respondent No.3 is an aided school and is receiving 75% grant from the Government of Haryana. It is stated that the petitioner was the only candidate, who had fulfilled the qualification of the post of Lecturer in Physics and was selected by the selection committee constituted by the Management. The petitioner has placed on record the appointment letter issued to her as Annexure P-3 and this appointment letter reads as under:- “Subject: APPOINTMENT LETTER: Sudha Agnihotri Ji, You are hereby informed that you have been selected for the permanent post of Lecturer in Physics in the interview conducted in Hindu Girls Senior Secondary School, Kalka on 24.5.90. Hence you come to school on 6th July, 1990 and join your duties. Sd/- Principal Hindu Girls Senior Sec School, KALKA (Ambala).” Prior to her appointment, the petitioner was working as Lecturer in Physics with Government Senior Secondary School, Bagli (Kangra) and had also worked as Lecturer in Physics in Government Civil Writ Petition No.4270 of 1993 : 3 : College, Dharamshala. The point of dispute between the parties is primarily concerning the nature of appointment given to the petitioner. By making reference to Annexure P-3, the petitioner would aver that her appointment as a Lecturer in Physics was permanent and regular. This fact, however, is disputed by the respondents, who would contend that the appointment was on probation for a period of two years and accordingly the services of the petitioner could be dispensed within the period of two years if these were not found to be of satisfactory nature. As per the respondents, the petitioner was issued letter, Annexure P-3, but this was not an appointment letter but only an intimation of selection/appointment. As per the respondents, the appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 11.8.1990, copy of which is annexed with the reply as Annexure R-3/1. In this appointment letter, it is clearly mentioned that petitioner shall be on probation for a period of two years in accordance with rules and this can be extended for such further period as the competent authority under the rules may determine. Respondents would accordingly contend that the appointment of the petitioner, which she accepted, was on a probation and not permanent or regular basis. Accordingly, the submission is made that her services could be dispensed with while she was on probation. The petitioner would join serious issues in this regard and would make reference to the averments made in para 5 of the petition. It is stated that after about 3-4 months of the petitioner having joined the service, she was called upon by the Principal and Civil Writ Petition No.4270 of 1993 : 4 : apprised that the auditors have pointed out that the language of the appointment letter issued to her was not as per the proforma prescribed under the Government rules. The Principal accordingly told the petitioner that in order to satisfy the requirement of auditor, as it was an aided post, the school had prepared another appointment letter giving same reference number and date. Since this letter of appointment contained a condition of two years probation, the petitioner claims to have refused to accept the same, it being against the agreed terms and conditions as were settled prior to her appointment. The matter was referred to the President of the Managing Committee of the School Shri Kanti Prakash Bhalla and after discussion, it was decided not to compel the petitioner to accept the new letter of appointment and to keep the same in the office file to satisfy the requirement of audit. Accordingly, the petitioner would say that her appointment was on permanent and regular basis and the subsequent appointment letter was not a valid letter of appointment. In order to cement the averments made in para 5 of the petition, the counsel for the petitioner would point out that the appointment letter annexed with the reply is dated 28.5.1990, whereas concededly it was issued on 11.8.1990. The counsel accordingly contends that the action taken after three months was due to the reasons as disclosed in para 5 of the petition. To be fair to the respondents, they have vehemently denied the contents of para 5 of the petition and would say that this is a sheer afterthought and a concoction advanced by the petitioner to support her claim as made in the petition. In response to specific query by the court, counsel for Civil Writ Petition No.4270 of 1993 : 5 : respondent No.3 concedes that the petitioner was issued letter, Annexure P-3. The explanation offered to say that this was only an intimation of selection or appointment apparently is not justified. The subject of this letter clearly indicates that it is an appointment letter. The submissions and the averments made by the petitioner to explain Annexure R-3/1, thus, cannot be brushed-aside lightly. It would have been a different matter had Annexure P-3 been not issued to the petitioner. No justification is forthcoming as to why the appointment letter, Annexure R-3/1 was issued three months after its preparation, if it had been prepared at the time of the appointment of the petitioner. This appointment letter was bound to be prepared and issued on the date of preparation and not three months thereafter. The pleas raised on behalf of the petitioner, thus, appear probable and plausible. Normally, the writ court would have refrained from deciding the disputed questions of fact. There are, however, two reasons for which this well understood principle may need to be ignored in this case. The writ petition was admitted in the year 1993 and is being heard after expiry of period of 18 years. Concededly, the petitioner has continued to remain in service of the school for all these years as while admitting the writ petition, the respondents were restrained from relieving or terminating the services of the petitioner. Requiring the petitioner now to ease out of service on the ground that she was not successful in completing the probation period would be highly unfair and totally unjustified. For 18 years, the petitioner has continued to work. The requirement of completing the probation period without success cannot now be pressed. It may not be Civil Writ Petition No.4270 of 1993 : 6 : available now. Even otherwise, it is doubtful whether the appointment of the petitioner made initially was on probation. Prima-facie, appointment was of a permanent and regular nature. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The order/notice dated 3.4.1993 is quashed. The parties are left to bear their respective costs. February 09, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE