IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 08.09.2025 Pooja Verma .... Petitioner Versus Educational Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Yamuna Nagar and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Anshul Labana, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Sube Singh Kaushik, Advocate, for respondents no.2 and 3.

None for respondents no.4 and 5.

Mr. Aakash Singla, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL)

The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment passed by the Educational Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, dated 09.01.2020, Annexure P-10, whereby the petitioner’s appeal filed against the order dated 12.04.2018 relieving her from service, has been dismissed. Further, a writ of mandamus has also been sought directing respondents no.2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Management’) to allow the petitioner to continue in service, and pay arrears of salary, etc.

2. As per facts pleaded, being duly qualified the petitioner was engaged as a Lecturer in the Maharaja Agrasen College, Jagadhri, run by the Management, on 17.07.2006. In 2011, she was promoted as Assistant Professor in Commerce and given additional charge of the Department of Bachelor in Business Administration (BBA). It is also claimed that she had been appointed under ‘Self-financing Scheme Rules for Non- Government/Private Affiliated Colleges (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Scheme’), Annexure P-2. As per clause 8 whereof, ‘… In case, the college intends to discontinue a particular course, the staff engaged in connection with the running of the said course will be duly notified of the College’s intent to discontinue the course from the ensuing academic session as soon as a decision to this effect is taken by the Governing Body of the College’.

3. Learned senior counsel contended that there was no justification to relieve the petitioner from service, as the course she had been appointed under was continuing in the College. And having been appointed under the Scheme, she had a right to continue in service. He has also relied upon the observations made by the Tribunal to the effect, ‘even her contract was also renewed further’. It is, accordingly, contended, once the contract had been renewed further, her services could not have been dispensed with. The decision is, therefore, arbitrary and needs to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the Management, however, disputes the facts on the basis of written statement filed on behalf of respondents no.2 and 3; relevant paragraph whereof is as under:

2. That the contents of para no. 2 of the writ petition are wrong and hence, denied, it is wrong to say that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer on regular basis in this regard it is submitted that no appointment letter with terms and condition was ever issued to the petitioner by the answering respondents which shows that the petitioner was appointed as regular employee. The petitioner wrongly claims herself to be a regular employee of the college. But there is no document which can establish the nature of her appointment as regular employee on management post. The petitioner herself admitted that no appointment letter was issued to her. The documents relied by the petitioner, one of them is experience certificate which shows her as “temporary employee under self finance scheme”. A copy of the experience certificate dated 23.11.2017 issued to the petitioner is attached herewith as Annexure R-2/1.

Therefore it is clear from perusal of the above that the petitioner was not appointed on regular basis.

He also contended that the petitioner was not engaged under the Scheme, nor had the procedure prescribed therein for engagement of employees/teachers been followed; further, neither any appointment letter had been issued to her, nor was she appointed for any particular course. In fact, the appointment had been made by the Col