JUDGMENT V.M. Sahai, J.
1. The petitioner was appointed as mid-wife on 17.6.1980. The services of the petitioner has been terminated by order dated 28.11.1985. The petitioner challenged the termination order by means of the present writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Satish Chaturvedi urged that the service of the petitioner who was a temporary employee has been terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory work in pursuance of notice dated 15.10.1985 which constitutes foundation for terminating the service of the petitioner, therefore, the termination order is violative of principles of natural justice. He placed reliance on a recent decision of the Apex Court in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U. P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and another, 1999 (2) SCC 21.
3. The learned standing counsel Sri S. P. Pandey argued that the termination order is termination simpliciter and does not cast any stigma on the petitioner. Termination of service on the ground of unsatisfactory work can be a motive for taking action against the petitioner but it cannot be said to be the foundation. He relied on the decision in Radhey Shyam Gupta (supra) and other decisions of the Apex Court State of U. P. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, (1991) 1 SCC 691 and Triveni Shankar Saxena v. State of U. P., 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 524.
4. The service of temporary employee can be dispensed with by the employer if his work is unsatisfactory by giving one month notice. Merely because the employer has Intimated the employee the fact that his work is unsatisfactory cannot be treated to be a foundation on the basis of which services of the petitioner has been terminated. Such an information to the employee after assessing his work can only held to be a motive for terminating his service. The Apex Court in Radhey Shyam Gupta (supra) laid down :
".....the termination of service of a temporary servant or one on probation, on the basis of adverse entries or on the basis of an assessment that his work is not satisfactory will not be punitive inasmuch as the above facts are merely the motive and not the foundation. The reason why they are the motive is that the assessment is not done with the object of finding out any misconduct on the part of the officer."
5. By letter dated 15.10.1985, the respondents informed the petitioner that her achievement under the family planning scheme for the year 1985-86 till September should have been 18 whereas it was nil. She appears to be disinterested in the national scheme and she was warned to complete her target by the end of the month otherwise her services may be terminated. The question that arises for consideration is whether such information by the employer can be held to be the foundation for termination of service. The respondents by notice gave a chance to the petitioner to Improve and complete her target. She failed to achieve the target. The respondents on 28.10.1985 order terminated her service. Every employer has a right to assess the performance of his employee. Where the employer after assessment of the work of the employee decides not to continue the temporary servant due to unsatisfactory work, such a decision of the employer will be motive for termination and not foundation. The petitioner was a temporary employee. Her service has been terminated by a simpliciter order of termination without casting any stigma. The termination order does not suffer from any error.
6. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.