JUDGMENT :

Rai Chattopadhyay, J.

1. The letter of termination to the writ petitioner, that is dated November 13, 2019, issued by the Secretary/respondent number 7, of the respondent school/respondent number 4, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. Pursuant to an advertisement, published in the newspaper on August 27, 2017, the petitioner had applied for the post of a full- time clerk in the respondent school. In the said advertisement the qualification sought for the post was Higher Secondary with Computer and Accounts knowledge. The petitioner took part in the selection process and was selected, being the top scorer in the process.

3. A letter of appointment was issued to her to appoint her as an office clerk with effect from April 2, 2018, purely on temporary basis and in lieu of a consolidated monthly pay of Rs. 10,000/-. Since April 2, 2018, that is, the date of her appointment in the respondent school, the petitioner has been working there till the time her employment was terminated by the impugned letter dated November 13, 2019. At the time of termination of her service, the petitioner was paid two account payee cheques of Rs. 4000/- and Rs. 30,000/- respectively, on account of her salary for the month of November, 2019 and a lump-sum termination benefit, which she has received.

4. Before termination of her service, there has been exchange of written communications between the respondent school and the petitioner. By dint of a letter dated June 25, 2019, the respondent school has informed the writ petitioner regarding her poor performance with accounts works, she has been advised to improve her job skill within 3 months from the date of receipt of that letter and to treat the said letter as the 3 months notice for termination of service. It was informed also that unless her job skill would be found to have improved after 3 months period from the said letter the school authority would have no other way than to terminate her service.

5. The writ petitioner replied to the said letter, vide her letter dated September 4, 2019. The petitioner urged there that since her induction in the said school in the said post she had discharged the duties sincerely, to the best of her abilities and thus has rendered unblemished service to the school. She had also mentioned letter of the school authorities dated June 25, 2019, to be vague and non- specific insofar as the same has been devoid of allegation of any specific shortcoming of her service. She has mentioned further that during the one and half years of her service in the said school, her performance has never been questioned earlier by the authorities. She has informed further that even inspite of rendering service with utmost sincerity and diligence, she is ever prepared to improve herself to match the highest standard of performance.

6. Her said letter appears to be pending for consideration in the agenda list of the Managing Committee of the respondent school.

7. In the circumstances as mentioned above, the petitioner has sought for relief, by filing the present writ petition.

8. Mr. Bhattacharya represents the petitioner in this case. He has contended strongly that the impugned termination letter and the resultant termination of the writ petitioner by dint of the same, have been effected with gross arbitrariness, flagrant violation of the statutory provision and the principles of natural justice. He says that the respondent school authority has never granted any opportunity to the writ petitioner to speak in her defence, though it has alleged about lacuna of her performance. Also that the petitioner’s response to the so-called notice of termination, has also not been considered. Instead the school authority, in a high-handed, closed minded and unilateral way has put an end to the service career of the writ petitioner. Therefore such an act of the respondent school is arbitrary and illegal, he says.

9. He has further stated that the pre-amended Management Rules (of 1969), w