ORDER :

1. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 29.7.21 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant challenging legality of the order dated 11.8.19 issued by the Principal, Sainik School Chittorgarh, terminating her services while giving one month's salary in lieu of the notice, has been dismissed.

2. The appellant was appointed on the post of Lab Assistant (Biology) on regular basis in Sainik School, Chittorgarh. The services of the appellant were to be governed by the Sainik School Society Service Rules and Regulation ('the Rules and Regulations'). The term of the appointment relevant for the controversy involved in the instant appeal i.e. para 4 of the appointment order reads as under:

"4. You will be on probation for a period of one year extendable to two years as per Sainik Schools Society's Rules and Regulations. On successful completion of probation period you may be considered for confirmation in the above post. During the period of probation your services may be terminated by the appointing authority without assigning any reason with one month's notice. Reciprocally you while on probation may leave after giving one month's notice of resignation or surrendering one month's salary. Your services may also be terminated without notice and without assigning any reason on disciplinary grounds. You will be governed by New Pensions Scheme for pensionary benefits."

3. It is noticed that after completion of one year of service, the probation period of the appellant was extended vide order dated 13.8.19 for a period of one more year i.e. upto 12.8.21. However, during the extended period of probation, vide order dated 8.7.21 issued by the Principal, Sainik School Chittorgarh, the services of the appellant were brought to an end in terms of para 4 of the appointment order quoted hereinabove.

4. The legality of the termination order dated 8.7.21 was questioned by the appellant by way of a writ petition before this Court. The contention of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that expression "services are now no more required" used by the respondents while terminating the services of the appellant indicates that order is stigmatic and therefore, before terminating the service, the respondents were under an obligation to extend an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

5. Learned Single Judge after examining the material on record arrived at the conclusion that the services of the appellant have been brought to an end during the probation period as her services were not found satisfactory. Learned Single Judge opined that the expression "services are now no more required" used is rather a sophisticated and courteous way of saying that the appellant's services were found unsatisfactory. Relying upon various documents placed on record by the respondents, the learned Single Judge observed that same are suggestive of the situation that the respondents were not at all satisfied with the services of the appellant. The Court concluded that the order dated 8.07.2021 is neither stigmatic nor arbitrary or otherwise contrary to statutory provisions. Accordingly, the writ petition has been dismissed.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the termination of the services of the appellant by the order impugned in the writ petition was ex facie violative of Rule 7.08 of the Rules and Regulation inasmuch as in terms of the said Rule, the services of the appellant could not have been brought to an end without giving her one month's notice. According to the learned counsel, the offer of one month's salary in lieu of the notice issued by the respondents does not satisfy the requirement envisaged under Rule 7.08, which specifically mandates that the termination of the services should be preceded by one month's notice. In support of the contention, learned counsel relied upon a Bench decision of the High Court of Gauhati in R.K. Angousana Sin