V. N. Khare, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) There is an organisation known as Vishwa Bharata Seva Samithi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Samithi'). The Samithi is running a Higher Secondary School (hereinafter referred to as the 'Institution') in the town of Belgaum, Karnataka. The institution is imparting education up to higher secondary level. The institution is a private Government aided school, recognised by the Government of Karnataka. The method of appointment and condition of services of the teachers and employees working in the institutions are governed by the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Rules framed thereunder known as the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). In the year 1984, a post of Assistant Teacher in the institution fell vacant. The Management of the institution advertised the said vacancy and invited applications for appointment to the said post. Appellant No. 1, and others, in response to the said advertisement submitted applications and for that purpose a Selection Committee was constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Appellant No. 1 was selected and recommended by the Selection Committee for appointment as Assistant Teacher. The Management, by a resolution dated 24-6-85, resolved to appoint appellant No. 1 on probation for a period of one year. Consequently, appellant No. 1 joined the service at Madhyamika Vidyalaya Mattiwade w.e.f. 1-7-85 on a pay scale of Rs. 750/- to Rs. 1,500/-. It is alleged that appellant No. 1 continued to teach till June 1994 when he was prevented by the Management of the School from performing his teaching assignment. Similarly, appellant No. 2 after having been selected by the Selection Committee constituted under the provisions of the rules was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the institution on probation for a period of one year. It is alleged that appellant No. 2 continued to work, but subsequently he was also prevented from performing his teaching duties. In such circumstances, the appellants herein, preferred separate appeals before the Tribunal constituted under the Act. The Tribunal allowed both the appeals and directed for reinstatement of the appellants. Aggrieved, the Management filed two Civil Revision Petitions before the High Court of Karnataka. The case of the Management, inter alia, was that, since appellant No. 1 was absent from 25-11-1991 to 1-6-1992, 1-7-92 to 6-7-92, 27-7-92 to 27-7-92, (sic) 3-8-92 to 14-8-92 and thereafter from 15-8-92 onwards remained absent and, as such, the services of the appellant stood automatically terminated and that the appellant was appointed on probation subject to the approval of Director of Public Instructions, Belgaum and there being no approval to the appointments, the appellants have ceased to be teacher in the institution. However, the case of the appellants before the High Court was that they were appointed on probation and after the expiry of the probationary period, they automatically became regular teachers and since no order of termination having been passed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder, the action of the Management in not permitting the appellants to perform their duties was wholly illegal and arbitrary. It was also their case that there being no provision either under the Act or the Rules for obtaining approval for appointment as Assistant Teacher the appointments of the appellants were in accordance with law. The High Court was of the view that since the Management did not obtain the approval of the concerned Inspecting Officer in regard to appointments of the appellants as Assistant Teacher, the appellants have ceased to be teacher in the institution. In that view of the matter, the Civil Revision Petition filed by the Management were allowed and the order of the Tribunal was set aside. It is against the said judgment and order of the High Court, the appellants have preferred these appeals by way of Special Leave Petitions.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants urged, firstly, that there being no requirement either under the Act or Rules for the Management to obtain approval of the Head of the Department in respect of the appointments of the appellants as Assistant Teacher in the institution, the view taken by the High Court is erroneous. Secondly, that the method of appointment and conditions of service of teachers in private Government aided institution being governed by the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, any requirement of approval of regular appointments of teachers under the non-statutory administrative orders contained in grant-in-aid code would not make the appointments of the appellants invalid. Thirdly, that the appellants having been appointed on probation, the appellants automatically became confirmed teachers of the institution after completion of their probationary period and fourthly, that, in any case, there being no provision under the Rules for automatic termination of service in the event of the teacher being absent, the alleged automatic termination of service of the appellants is illegal.;