Smt. Poonam vs The Sainik School Society
2021 Latest Caselaw 11795 Raj

(1 of 6) [CW-8993/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8993/2021

Smt. Poonam D/o Shri Jaivir Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o G- 6, Sainik School Campus, Sainik School, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Sainik School Society, Through Its Honorary Secretary, Ministry Of Defense, New Delhi.

2. The Principal, Sainik School, Chittorgarh, Bhilwara Road, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

3. General Officer Of Commanding, South West Command, Chairman Local Board Of Administration, 61-Sub Area, Jaipur, C/o 56-Apo.

                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Kuldeep Mathur
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Anil Bhandari with
                                Mr. V.D. Dadhich



                     JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                     Order

29/07/2021

(1) The petitioner was appointed as a Lab Assistant (Biology)

pursuant to regular selection process, vide order dated

11.08.2019, issued by the Principal, Sainik School, Chittorgarh.

The appointment order aforesaid clearly indicated that petitioner's

services shall be on probation for a period of one year, extendable

by further period of two years.

(2) The petitioner was issued an advisory on 04.01.2021 by the

Principal, as she had remained absent during the flag hoisting on

02.01.2021. Whereafter, certain more notices/advisories were

(2 of 6) [CW-8993/2021]

issued by the Principal/Vice-Principal to the petitioner in relation to

dereliction towards her duties.

(3) Vide order dated 08.07.2021, the petitioner's services have

been brought to an end by the respondents, observing thus:-

"Pursuant to provisions contained at para 4 of your appointment letter quoted ibid, your services are now no more required by Sainik School Chittorgarh."

(4) Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner, oppugning the

order dated 08.07.2021, argued that the reason assigned in the

order gives an indication as if the post of Lab Assistant (Biology)

does not exist in the respondent - School, for which her services

have been dispensed with.

(5) On the basis of the reply and note-sheet filed by the

respondents, it was also argued that the enquiry, if any, was to be

conducted by the Principal himself and the satisfaction was

required to be recorded by the Principal, who is the appointing

authority, whereas the Principal has simply approved the note-

sheet prepared by the Vice-Principal. It was vehemently argued

that it cannot be said that the appointing authority has applied its

own mind or recorded his satisfaction about the services rendered

by the petitioner.

(6) It was also argued by Mr. Mathur that the respondents have

proceeded malafidely and arbitrarily and have passed the order

under challenge, simply with a view to get-rid-of the petitioner.

(7) In support of his arguments, Mr. Mathur relied upon a

judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Progressive

Education Society & Anr. Vs. Rajendra & Anr., reported in (2008) 3

SCC 310, particularly para 15 thereof, which reads thus:-

(3 of 6) [CW-8993/2021]

"On a consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, the main issue which, in our view, requires determination in this appeal is wehther the provisions of Rules 14 and 15, and, in particular sub-rule (6) of Rule 15 of the MEPS Rules, 1981, would control the powers vested in the management of the school under sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the MEPS Act. The law with regard to termination of the services of a probationer is well established and it has been repeatedly held that such a power lies with the appointing authority which is at liberty to terminate the services of a probationer if it finds the performance of the probationer to be unsatisfactory during the period of probation. The assessment has to be made by the appointing authority itself and the satisfaction is that of the appointing authority as well. Unless a stigma is attached to the termination or the probationer is called upon to show cause for any shortcoming which may subsequently be the cause for termination of the probationer's service, the management or the appointing authority is not required to give any explanation or reason for terminating the services except informing him that his services have been found to be unsatisfactory."

(8) Mr. Anil Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents, on the other hand, submitted that though the note-

sheet (Annex.R-2/6) has been prepared by the Vice-Principal but

merely because the Principal has made just a small note :

"APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED", it cannot be alleged that the

satisfaction was not that of the Principal. It was also argued that

as the petitioner was on probation, her services could have been

dispensed with without any enquiry.

(9) In order to contend that in case the order of terminating a

probationer's services is not stigmatic, the Court should not

interfere, Mr. Bhandari cited the following judgments:-

(i) AIR 2002 SC 23;

(ii) AIR 2005 SC 792; and

(iii) (2005) 5 SCC 569;

(4 of 6) [CW-8993/2021]

(10) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon

perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the

considered view that petitioner's termination by the impugned

order dated 08.07.2021 is valid in the eye of law.

(11) True it is, that the impugned order contains the expression

"no more required" instead of the usual expression "unsatisfactory

services". But then, the expression "no more required" has to be

read in its entirety. If the entire phrase is read: "services are now

no more required", it clearly indicates/means that the services of

the petitioner are not required. Mr. Mathur's argument that it gives

an indication that the respondents are no more in requirement of

a Lab Assistant, though appears to be attractive at first flush but

the same has no force, given the factual backdrop of the case.

(12) In normal circumstances, the respondents ought to have

used the expression "unsatisfactory" but in the opinion of this

Court, what has been indicated by the respondents in the

impugned order that "your services are now no more required by

Sainik School, Chittorgarh" is a rather sophisticated or courteous

way of saying that petitioner's services were found unsatisfactory.

(13) Adverting to the second argument advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner, that as the report (Annex.R-2/6) has

been prepared by the Vice-Principal, there is no satisfaction of the

Principal - appointing authority himself, this Court feels that in the

face of various documents placed on record, particularly, Annex.R-

2/1 (issued by the Principal), Annex.R-2/2 (sent by the Vice-

Principal but issued by the Principal), Annex.R-2/3 (issued by the

Vice-Principal) and Annex.R-2/5 (issued by the Principal), are

suggestive of the situation that the respondent - School was not

(5 of 6) [CW-8993/2021]

at all satisfied with the services of the petitioner, for which various

communications have been issued to her.

(14) Merely because the report Annex.R-2/6 has been prepared

by the Vice-Principal, it cannot be said that the Principal has

mechanically approved the recommendation so made by the Vice-

Principal. The note made by the Principal at page No.71, clearly

reflects that he has not simply approved the recommendation of

the Vice-Principal, but has also issued direction to the A.O. and

B.P. to initiate necessary action for completion of procedural

formalities while also directing that the individual be informed

accordingly. Such detailed noting apart from the expression

"approved and recommended" indicates that the Principal has

applied his own mind on the detailed enquiry/recommendation

made by the Vice-Principal.

(15) So far as judgment relied upon by Mr. Mathur is concerned,

true it is, that according to law laid by Hon'ble the Supreme Court,

the satisfaction has to be that of the appointing authority but in

the present facts, for the reasons indicated in the preceding paras,

this Court is of the opinion that the Principal has recorded his own

satisfaction for the delinquency of the petitioner - a probationer.

Nothing more was required, particularly in case of the petitioner,

who has been found negligent towards her duties and was found

derelicting in her duties.

(16) That apart, in case of a probationer, unless the order of

termination is stigmatic, the Constitutional Courts have been slow

in interfering. Neither the order under challenge dated 08.07.2021

is stigmatic nor is the same arbitrary or otherwise contrary to

statutory provisions. Hence, no interference is warranted.

(6 of 6) [CW-8993/2021]

(17) The writ petition, therefore, fails.

(18) The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J

53-skm/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)