CWP No. 23713-2017 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 23713-2017 (O&M) Parveen Kumari ....Petitioner versus Union of India and ors. ...Respondents Date of Reserve: 09.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 22.07.2026 Uploaded on:- 24 .07.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No Whether full judgment is pronounced? Yes CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Sandeep Godara, Advocate, for Mr. A.P.S.Rehan, Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondent No. 1. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Advocate and Ms. Bindu Bala, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate for respondent No. 5. **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA , J. (Oral) 1. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order/notice dated 06.06.2017 issued by respondent No. 2, whereby the services of the petitioner as Vocational Teacher Special Embroidery (Contractual basis) in Army Institute of Vocational and Technical Training (AIVTT) at 21 Sub Area c/o Stn Wksp EME Pathankot has been terminated. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that order of termination is stigmatic and is passed without granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also without following principles of natural justice. He, therefore prays that GAURAV ARORA 2026.07.24 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 23713-2017 2 the present petition be allowed and order/notice dated 06.06.2017 issued by respondent No. 2 be set aside. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents argues on the lines of reply filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole file of this case with their able assistance. 5. A perusal of the file shows that in the appointment letter dated 31.03.2017 of the petitioner, it has been specifically mentioned that the petitioner would be on probation for a period of three months, which could be extended on discretion of appointing authority and the services may be terminated during the probation period or the extended period of probation by giving notice of one month or salary in lieu of notice without assigning any reasons by appointing authority. 6. A perusal of the impugned notice/order dated 06.06.2017 shows that during probation period, the management committee noticed that the petitioner was not up to the required standard and her temperament did not match with the ethos of the institute because of which the services of the petitioner were terminated. 7. Further perusal of reply dated 06.01.2018 filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 shows that the petitioner was terminated on 06.06.2017 by giving one month advance salary. Since the petitioner was on probation, her services were terminated on the ground that during this period, the Management Committee found her disobedient and defiant to the instructions of her seniors/superiors and not adhering to the rules and regulations and also not following the curriculum. The reply further shows that the petitioner was verbally counseled by the Coordinator regarding the same but she failed to improve or GAURAV ARORA 2026.07.24 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 23713-2017 3 amend her behaviour. As per terms of the appointment, the person was engaged in service for only 11 months at a time and every tenure is subjected to probation regardless of the previous tenure served. During this period service can be terminated without assigning any reason by the appointing authority. Rather as per appointment letter, the service of the employee can be terminated even after confirmation of service. In the present case, since the petitioner was not found fit during her probation period, therefore, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. 9. Pending application (s) if any also stands disposed of. July 22, 2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Gaurav Arora JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No GAURAV ARORA 2026.07.24 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document