The UGC Regulations 2010 are only directory in nature for unaided/self-financed universities, and the university's General and Service Regulations, including an open-ended probation period, are applicable to employees.

Jaswant Singh, J.

1. Petitioner (Dr. Jyoti Rani) by way of the present Civil Writ Petition has challenged the order dated 07.06.2018 (Annexure P-6) wherein the petitioner has been discharged from service of Assistant Professor (Food Science & Technology) in the Department of Bio-Technology in the Respondent-University Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala.

2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the Respondent-University advertised the post of Assistant Professor (Food Science & Technology) in Department of Bio-Technology in April 2015 and the said advertised post was to be filled through three (03) tier selection process. The petitioner was selected for the said post and was issued appointment letter dated 11.07.2015 (Annexure P-1). The terms & conditions of the appointment letter were accepted by the petitioner and in token of said acceptance, an endorsement dated 15.07.2015 was made by the petitioner on the appointment letter itself. In the appointment letter, in the terms & conditions of appointment, it was mentioned as under:-

"........2. You shall be on probation for a period of two years initially. The period of probation may be further extended on the sole discretion of University. Your confirmation shall be subject to your conduct and work being satisfactory during this period.

3. During the initial or extended period of probation, your services may be terminated on either side on month's notice or month's salary in lieu thereof, without assigning any reason."

Under the head, "Other Terms & Conditions of Service" it was mentioned that:

"In the matter of other terms & conditions of services, you will be governed by the Service Regulation of the University, as may be in force and amended from time to time. A set of the Service Regulation is available in the Registry of the University."

All the terms and conditions including the aforestated terms and conditions were accepted by the petitioner prior to her joining the service.

3. The petitioner joined the respondent-University on 27.07.2015 and remained on the probation. Her period of probation of two years was extended for a period of one year vide letter dated 12.01.2018 (Annexure P-2) though wrongly typed as 12.01.2017. During the said extended period of probation, by the impugned order dated 07.06.2018 (P6), the petitioner was ordered to be discharged from service.

The petitioner in impugning the order dated 07.06.2018 (P-1) is alleging mala fides against respondent No. 3, 5 & 6 and has mentioned that under UGC/MHRD/Government of India instructions the maximum period of probation is specified as two years as initial probation period for employees appointed against permanent posts. The petitioner has also refuted the 'Advisory Note' given to the petitioner on 28.09.2017 (Annexure P-7) which is addressed to the petitioner by the Head, Department of Bio-Technology.

4. Respondents No. 1, 2 & 4 have filed their written statement wherein in the Preliminary Submissions, it is mentioned that after the joining of the petitioner in July 2015, the petitioner's performance deteriorated from 'Good' to 'Satisfactory' to 'Poor'. The petitioner for her Quarterly Appraisal Report from July 2015 to December 2016 (Six Quarterly Appraisal Reports) served under Dr. Dinesh Goyal as Head of the Department of the Bio-Technology Department of the Respondent-University and thereafter from January 2017 to March 2018 (Five Quarterly Appraisal Reports) under respondent No. 5 as the Head of the Department and having consistent unsatisfactory Performance Report. As per the respondent-University, the extension of probation by another period of one year was another opportunity granted to the petitioner to show improvement which was duly reflected in the extension letter dated 12.01.2018 (P-2).

The Respondent-University has also taken the preliminary objections that as per the advertisement, pursuant to which the petitioner was selected, one of the requirement was that the candi