The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of a confirmed employee's services must adhere to the prescribed procedure and statutory rules. The court emphasized the protection available to employees under the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Services) Act, 1979.

SUDIP AHLUWALIA, J.

1. These two Intra-Court appeals have been preferred by Smt. Pushpa Sharma, who was the Writ Petitioner in CWP No. 4730 of 1988 and a Respondent in CWP No. 6887 of 1987. Both the Writ Petitions were decided against her by the common impugned judgment passed by the Ld. Single Judge on 31.5.2011. It may be mentioned at the outset that by and large, the documents relied upon by the parties in both the appeals are common. As such, their respective Annexure numbers, whenever referred to in this judgment, would be those as assigned in the first appeal i.e. LPA No. 1701 of 2011, unless specifically mentioned otherwise.

2. The background of the matter is that the Appellant was originally working as a Lecturer in the S.D. College of Education, Narwana and was confirmed there. The college was Government aided though privately managed. The appellant was appointed against a regular post duly sanctioned under the Grant-in-Aid Scheme. On being declared surplus in that College, she was directed to be absorbed /adjusted in the Respondent College (Arya College, Panipat) by the Director, Higher Education, Haryana. She accordingly joined in the Respondent/College as a Lecturer in Chemistry on 5.8.1984. In the Appointment Letter (Annexure P-1) issued to her on that day by the Secretary, Arya College, Managing Committee, a reference was made to letter no. 8/1-84c (5) Dated 1.10.1984, in pursuance of which, she was appointed Lecturer in the Respondent/College. Her monthly salary was fixed at Rs. 860/- in terms of letter No. 4734/8/1-84(5) in the grade of Rs. 700/- to 1600/- (plus allowances). However, it was also mentioned therein that she would 'be on probation as per University Rules' and also that she would 'be governed by the Services and Conduct Rules for teachers of Non-Government Affiliated Colleges'.

3. The Appellant was clearly aggrieved by the Clause of putting her 'on probation' since according to her, having been confirmed as a Lecturer earlier, her absorption/adjustment in the Respondent/College at the instance of the Director, Higher Education, Haryana (Respondent No. 2) clearly was not a case of fresh appointment. Therefore, according to her, as specifically mentioned in Para 4 of her Writ Petition, (CWP No. 4730 of 1988), the condition laid down in her Appointment Letter that she would remain on probation 'as per University Rules was wholly illegal, arbitrary and against the Rules'. Further, the case of the Appellant was that during the alleged period of probation, her work and conduct remained unblemished and that no adverse report/remarks of any sort whatsoever were ever conveyed to her and that her teaching work result was higher than the average result declared by the Kurukshetra University in the respective years. Nevertheless, her period of probation was extended by one year with effect from 6.8.1985 by the Secretary of the Management of the Respondent/College, vide letter dated 1.8.1985 (Annexure P-2). Her contention in this regard is that the Secretary of the Respondent/Management was not competent to extend her period of probation and that the aforesaid communication was altogether without jurisdiction and void. Even otherwise, the decision about the extension of her probation had been taken six months in advance without any cogent reason and basis, which was, therefore, wholly arbitrary and untenable.

4. The Appellant in her Writ Petition had also referred to various rules & instructions issued by the State of Haryana and Kurukshetra University from time to time, which are on record as Annexures P-4, P-5 and P-6. The sum and substance of these communications happens to be that the extension of the probation period of any teacher must be included as a specific Agenda of the Management Committee after proper notice to all members, and that the nominees of the University and the Department must be associated and if due to some reasons, they do not assemble or attend the meeting, the decision should b