1. The brief facts are that Respondent 1, who was appointed as Staff Nurse in the appellants Institute in a temporary capacity on a substantive post, was warned more than once that her work was unsatisfactory and she should show improvement. Thereafter, on 15-1-1973, the Principal of the Institute served notice on her stating that her services will stand terminated w.e.f. the expiry of one month from the date of notice. However, on a representation made by per she was excused and the said order was withdrawn with a warning that if her work is not found to be satisfactory, her services will be terminated without any further notice. Again in April 1973 the Principal issued a letter informing her that her work was not found to be satisfactory and directed her to show improvement. In order to enable her to show improvement, her services were extended for a period of three months by an order dated 29-5-1973. On 10-7-1973 an order was issued stating that her services would not be required beyond 11-8-1973. It was in this manner that her services came to be terminated as she failed to show improvement despite repeated opportunities given to her. She challenged the impugned order terminating her services on the ground of unsuitability by a writ petition, but a learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition. However, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed her appeal holding that though the order appeared to be innocuous the history of the case went to show that her services were terminated because of dereliction of duty and unsatisfactory conduct. We fail to understand from the events which we have stated and on which the High Court rested its conclusion how it can be said that the impugned order even if X-rayed is penal in nature. The High Court concedes that the services of a temporary employee can be terminated without notice and without holding an inquiry on the ground of unsuitability. In the instant case, the services of the employee were found ton be unsatisfactory from time to time and even though the employer showed magnanimity in continuing her in service with a view to giving her an opportunity to show improvement, she failed to do so and hence the employer was ultimately compelled to terminate her services. In the circumstances, we do not think that the High Court was justified in the view it took in the backdrop of the facts leading to the passing of the impugned order. We, therefore, cannot allow the order of the High Court to stand.

2. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the Division Bench of the High Court and restore the order of the learned Single Judge. We, however, make it clear that the subsistence allowance paid under the Courts order shall not be recovered from her. There will be no order as to costs.