AGRAWAL KANYA PATHSALA Vs. GOPAL KRISHAN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant special appeal was listed on 21. 4. 2006 for hearing on stay vacating application. THE counsel for the parties agreed on that day that instead of deciding the stay matter, the appeal itself may be finally decided. Accordingly, the counsel for the parties made submissions and order was reserved.

(2.) THIS special appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 24. 8. 2005, whereby he dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants against the order of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') dated 24. 9. 2003, whereby the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 was accepted and he was reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.

(3.) THE appellants filed the writ petition against the order of the Tribunal dated 24. 9. 2003, whereby respondent No. 1 has been reinstated with all consequential benefits. In brief the facts of the writ are that the respondent No. 1 was appointed on probation for one year as Senior Clerk vide order dated 14. 9. 1991. Before expiry of the said probation period, the Managing Committee reviewed his performance and decided to extend the probation period for further one year vide order dated 16. 8. 1992 i. e. up to 15. 9. 1993 and before completion of the said extended period of probation, the Managing Committee again reviewed the performance of respondent No. 1 and was of the unanimous opinion that respondent No. 1 as U. D. C. during his probation period, has not made sufficient use of his opportunities and failed to give satisfaction, therefore, he is being discharged. THE said decision along with complete record of the Managing Committee was also sent to the Deputy Director (Women), Education, Ajmer Circle, Ajmer vide letter dated 13. 8. 1993 for approval. On 7. 9. 1993, the Deputy Director gave reply that the Institution has not acted in accordance with Rule 39 (2) (a) to (h) of the Rules of 1993, therefore, further proceedings could be taken as per rule after taking action accordingly. on 8. 9. 1993, the Managing Committee clarified its position and submitted that in case of a probationer, the said Rule 39 (2) (a) of the Rules of 1993 is not applicable and the action is to be taken as per Rule 30 (b) of the Rules of 1993, being a case of discharge of a probationer. THEn again on 9. 9. 1993, the Deputy Director (Women), Education, Ajmer Circle, Ajmer wrote a letter to the appellant that the approval is not possible without making compliance of Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of 1993. THE appellant has also stated that the action of the Government official in issuing the aforesaid two letters is arbitrary and further they have not examined the said issue of a termination simpliciter of a probationer under Rules 30 (b) of the Rules of 1993.