IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION NO.8872/2019 (S RES) BETWEEN MRS INDIRAMMA K., D/O LATE KULLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O NO.24, 10TH CROSS, PIPELINE CHOLARA PALYA, BENGALURU-23.
(BY SRI SIDDARAJU M, ADV.) AND THE PRINCIPAL M R AMBEDKAR DENTAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL, #1/36, CLINE ROAD, COOKI TOWN, BENGALURU-05.
... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI C N VENUGOPAL, ADV. FOR C/RESPONDENT.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE TERMINATION ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DTD:25.1.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-C TO THE W.P ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner is before this court calling in question Annexure-C the order of termination issued by the respondent college. The order of termination is dated 25.01.2019.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she has completed ITI course (Electronics and Mechanical) and made an application to the respondent and the respondent by order dated 13.11.2015 was pleased to appoint her and the said order is produced as Annexure-A.
3. That suddenly and without any prior notice or any enquiry, termination order vide Annexure-C came to be issued terminating her services and that the termination order is issued, despite her having rendered the service to the institution diligently, honestly and efficiently and there has been no complaints against her. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order being illegal, is required to be interfered with. On perusal of Annexure-A the condition Nos.1 & 8 of the appointment order reads as under:-
“1. This appointment is purely temporary for a period of 03 years as per AS&ET Rules. Further extension will be considered only on an application to be made by him / her to the appointing authority subject to his / her performance, diligence / devotion to duty and conduct in this institution which will be reviewed by the Principal, MRADC and other authorities concerned.
8. The appointment being temporary subject to verification of original certificates, any willful suppression of material information are found to be false, the services will be terminated without assigning any reason without prejudice to such appropriate action as may be decided by the appointing authority under the provisions of the AS&ET services rules.”
4. On a bare reading of the above, it is apparent that the appointment was for a stipulated period and that any extension would be considered if an application is made by her to the appointing authority. Further, under the impugned order, it is set-out that on review, of the workload on the existing staffs strength it is of the opinion that the staff requirement is more than the required level and hence the services of the petitioner have not been extended and came to be terminated after granting one months salary. In view of the condition No.1 and 8, this court does not find any illegality in the order impugned.
Hence, the petition stands dismissed.
Chs* CT-HR Sd/- JUDGE