The main legal point established in the judgment is that a probationer's service can be terminated without a formal disciplinary proceeding, and unsatisfactory performance during probation does not necessarily cast a stigma on the employee.

1. The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is an order dated 30 April, 2012 whereby the respondent no. 2 being Sri Aurobinda Institute of Education, Salt Lake, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Institute’) terminated the service of the petitioner with effect from 2 June, 2012.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Institute by a letter dated 18 November, 2010 appointed the petitioner as a Casual Ayah on contractual basis for a period of six months with effect from 9 November, 2010 subject to extension of another six months on the basis of her performance. By a letter dated 30 June, 2011, the Institute extended the service of the petitioner by six months with effect from 9 May, 2011. By a letter dated 13 January, 2012 the Institute offered further employment to the petitioner on inter alia the term that she would be on probation for a period of one year from 1 January, 2012 to 31 December, 2012. By an order dated 30 April, 2012 the Institute terminated the service of the petitioner with effect from 2 June, 2012.

3. The petitioner made representations dated 14 May, 2012, 12 September, 2012 and 30 January, 2013(through her Advocate) to the Institute but there was no response from the Institute. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

4. Appearing for the petitioner Mr. Jayanta Banerjee, Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the impugned order of termination has been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice and as such is bad. No show cause notice was issued. No opportunity of hearing was given. The order has been passed on the alleged basis that the petitioner is in the habit of absenting herself from duty without prior sanction of leave. No opportunity of hearing was given to explain or refute such allegation. The Management was aware that during the period of her absence from service, her son was taking Higher Secondary examination and thereafter became sick which compelled the petitioner to stay away from service for a few days. The story of unauthorised absence of the writ petitioner has been concocted by the respondent authorities with the oblique motive of removing the petitioner from service.

5. In answer to the preliminary objection raised by Learned Counsel for the Institute as regards maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the Institute is a totally private body over which the State has no control or to which the State does not give any financial aid, Mr. Banerjee, relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court delivered on 14 July, 2015 in FMA 805 of 2015 (The Governing Body, Durgapur Institute of Advance Technology and Management vs. Subhangshuman De & Ors.) in support of his submission that the Institute is discharging a public function inasmuch as it is imparting education to students and as such is amenable to the writ jurisdiction. Learned Counsel also relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Alhuwalia vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 12 SCC 331. He also relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Janet Jeyapaul vs. SRM University, AIR 2016 SC 73.

6. Mr. Banerjee finally submitted that the impugned order is not one of termination simpliciter but attaches a stigma to the petitioner. In this connection he relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary vs. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna Bihar, (2015) 15 SCC 151.

7. Appearing for the Institute, Mr. Shyamal Chakraborty, Learned Counsel submitted that the Institute is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Neither the State has any manner of control over the functioning of the Institute nor the Institute receives any financial aid from the State. It is a private institute and a writ petition is not maintainable against it. He submitted that the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution is not available to the pe