Reena Malik vs State of Haryana and Others

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.—As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioner was appointed as a Teacher in the subject of Music (Vocal) and joined services as such with respondent No. 4 on 16th January, 2012. She was relieved from service on 19th May, 2012. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 27th May, 2012, the respondents again advertised posts for Music (Vocal) Teacher and she participated in the interview and successfully cleared the same and joined as a Teacher in the subject of Music (Vocal) on 9th July, 2012. However, she was not allowed to take classes on 19th July, 2012 for the reasons best known to the respondents. Even no order of termination etc. was served upon her. It is her further case that, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 24th July, 2012. However, no reply was given. Thereafter, the petitioner received a letter dated 14th August, 2012 (Annexure P-5) relieving her from the post of Music Teacher stating that she was appointed as a Music Teacher on contractual basis for 89 days on a consolidated salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month with effect from 9th July, 2012 but she was found absent from duty with effect from 18th July, 2012 till 14th August, 2012 and therefore, she was being relieved from duty due to long absence.

Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner was employed on regular basis on 16th January, 2012 and therefore, her services could not have been terminated without adopting the procedure prescribed for terminating the services of a regular employee. Learned counsel has referred to Annexure P-2 to show that contribution of her share of the provident fund for the months of February and March, 2012 was deducted from the salary of the petitioner and the same was deposited in her EPF account, which supports her case that she was appointed on regular basis.

However, at this stage it may be noticed that on a query put by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner could not produce the appointment letter of the petitioner whereby she was appointed as a Teacher on regular basis with effect from 16th January, 2012 or 9th July, 2012. Rather, a stand has been taken that no appointment letter was issued to the petitioner.

The aforesaid submission made on behalf of the petitioner, on the face of it, cannot be accepted.

Not only this, according to her own version, the petitioner was relieved from service on 19th May, 2012 and was given a consolidated salary of Rs. 9,000/- per month, and she had again participated in the subsequent interview held on the basis of an advertisement dated 27th May, 2012 and was selected and joined on 9th July, 2012. If the petitioner was appointed on regular basis on 16th January, 2012, there was no reason for her to again participate in the subsequent interview alleged to have taken place on 27th May, 2012.

Moreover, the petitioner had not raised any grievance against her relieving on 19th May, 2012 as averred and against the so called action of the respondents in giving her a consolidated salary of Rs. 9,000/- per month. Even before this Court, no grievance has been raised by the petitioner against her relieving on 19th May, 2012.

What were the terms and conditions of appointment of the petitioner, could be ascertained only from her appointment letter, which is not forthcoming on the record of the case.

Thus, in view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition is without any merit. Dismissed.