JUDGMENT :

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

1. The matter is taken up through video conferencing.

2. Heard Ms. R.S. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned Amicus Curiae.

3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who is the Deputy Commissioner of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 17.12.2015 passed in Original Application No. 97/2008 by which the Original Application of the respondent No. 1 herein was allowed directing that the respondent No. 1 be reinstated in service as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) English.

4. This case has a long and chequered history and this is second round of litigation before this Court. The facts of the case being important, needs to be stated first.

The respondent No. 1 was appointed as TGT English teacher after she was duly selected. This was by an appointment order dated 07.06.2006 where she was asked to join as TGT English Teacher in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya at Banduar, Udaipur, South Tripura. There is absolutely no dispute about the fact that the appointment of the respondent No. 1 was initially for two years on probation. The condition also stipulated that the two years of probation could be extended for further period of one year, and the authority concerned was empowered to terminate the services of the respondent No. 1 at any point of time during the period of probation, without assigning any reasons. The appointment order dated 07.06.2006 clearly stipulates the aforesaid condition, which reads as under :

"2. You will be initially on probation for a period of two years from the date of your joining which may further be extended at the discretion of the competent authority. Failure to complete the period of probation to the satisfaction of the competent authority will render you liable to discharge from service. Further during the period of probation your service can be dispensed with by the Samiti without assigning any reasons. While on probation, you will be required to give one month's notice of resignation in case you leave the Samiti."

(emphasis provided)

5. While the respondent No. 1 was serving as a TGT English Teacher during the period of probation at Navodaya Vidyalaya, it appears that she was reminded from time to time about the lapses on her part in performing as a teacher. In that regard, there are three letters dated 23.11.2006, 10.08.2007 and 15.08.2007 which are on record. It is again an admitted fact that performance of the candidates who are on probation is evaluated from time to time by the Inspector of Class Room Teaching and Learning and such evaluation report is forwarded to the concerned higher authority in Delhi. In the present case, the evaluation report of 62 candidates/teaching staff, including the respondent No. 1, were forwarded by the concerned Principals along with their remarks. In majority of the cases, the DPC recommended either confirmation of service or extension of the probation period, but in four cases, including the case of the respondent No. 1, the DPC was of the opinion that due to their poor performance, their services should be terminated. Consequent to the said report, a termination order (Annexure-8) was passed on 11.02.2008, which reads as under :

"OFFICE ORDER

In pursuance of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules 1965, the undersigned hereby terminates the services of Ms. S. Sultana, TGT (Eng.), JNV-South Tripura, with immediate effect.

(M.L. SHARMA)

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER"

6. This order was challenged by the respondent No. 1 before the Central Administrative Tribunal at Guwahati where the respondent No. 1 inter alia raised allegation of bias against the Principal of the school and also made allegation which is in the nature of sexual harassment. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the impugned termination order dated 11.02.2008 had been passed due to malafide reasons and in such matters even a probationary offic