IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA 4571 of 2004 DATE OF DECISION : JANUARY 11, 2008 JAIWANTI MALIK ....... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL AND ANOTHER .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. SK Sud, Advocate, for the appellant. AJAI LAMBA, J. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the concurrent findings of fact. The appellant-plaintiff claimed herself to have been appointed as Vice Principal and on that plea sought the relief of declaration with consequential reliefs of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. The courts below have found as a matter of fact that the appellant had applied for the job of Hostel Warden. The plaintiff was appointed as Hostel Superintendent vide appointment letter dated 12.7.1989 (Exh.P1) and as Hostel Warden vide appointment letter dated RSA 4571 of 2004 2 18.1.1991 (Exh.P2). The joining report (Exh.D1) and bio-data (Exh.P3) have been proved on the record and they disclose that she had joined her duties on 12.7.1989 as Hostel Superintendent. In the leave applications filed during the currency of her service i.e. Exh.P4 to Exh.P8, the appellant projected herself as Hostel Superintendent. Reliance has been placed by the appellant on letters issued by the Principal showing her as Vice Principal. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, admits that the Principal had no authority to give appointment even to a Peon and it was only Maha Sabha or the Executive Committee, which could make the appointment. In fact, there was no post of Vice Principal in existence. In para-10 of the judgment rendered by the first appellate court, it has been noticed that the appointment of the appellant was purely temporary and her services were terminable without giving any notice. Her serviced had not been confirmed. Further, there were allegations of embezzlement, insubordination and indiscipline. Her conduct as Hostel Warden was not found up to mark and standard. It has been noticed in para-11 of the judgment of the first appellate court that the appellant had embezzled a sum of Rs.27,510/- on account of mess money of the students. She was served various letters dated 3.4.1991, 4.4.1991, 11.4.1991 and 20.4.1991. She had resorted to collecting money from students in an illegal manner to the tune of Rs.18,000/- and she was warned on that count. She, accordingly, undertook to deposit the amount on 18.1.1991, which was done. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, learned RSA 4571 of 2004 3 counsel for the appellant has not been able to establish any claim of the appellant. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. January 11, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) JUDGE