H. K. Sema, J. - (1.) This appeal filed by the appellant Kalpataru Vidya Samsthe, Tiptur, Tumkur District, in short KVS, is directed against the judgment and order dated 19-8-2002 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in C.R.P.No.2959 of 2000, in exercise of its power under Section 115, C.P.C. The High Court has set aside the order dated 27-5-2000 passed in MA (Eat) No.2 of 1996 by the Additional District Judge, Education Appellate Tribunal, dismissing the appeal of the respondent herein under Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act.
(2.) The basic facts may be noted. The respondent No.1 was appointed as Assistant Professor in Mechanical Engineering Department of Kalpataru Institute of Technology by an order dated 6.9.1994 in the scale of Rs.3700-125-4950-150-5700 at Rs.3700/- basic pay and other allowances as are admissible under the rules and regulations on temporary basis for a probation period of one year commencing from 7-9-1994 till 7-9-1995. The said appointment carries a stipulation in Clause 11 that the appointment would be on probation for one year and thereafter the same would be reviewed. On the strength of the appointment, the respondent No.1 reported to duty on 7-9-1994 and worked till 31-8-1995. Before the completion of the probation period, the respondent No.1 was relieved from service w.e.f. 31-8-1995 and on 1-9-1995 he was again appointed afresh on probation for a period of six months i.e. up to 29-2-1996. His basic salary was, however, fixed at Rs. 3825/- with other allowances. Clause 11 of the said appointment order clearly stipulated that the appointment was purely temporary and up to 29-2-1996. Pursuant to the aforesaid appointment the respondent No.1 joined the duty on 4-9-1995. On completion of the period of probation, the respondent was relieved from his duties w.e.f. 1-3-1996. As noticed earlier, he filed an appeal before the Educational Appellate Tribunal in short EAT. The EAT after examining the evidence and documents on record dismissed the appeal holding inter alia that the re-appointment of the respondent by an order dated 1-9-1995 was for a period of six months i.e. up to 29-2-1996 and the respondent knowingly accepted the condition stipulated in the appointment letter and the said probation appointment came to an end by a efflux of time for which period he was appointed.
(3.) Counsel for the appellants first contended that the High Court has erred in law transgressing his jurisdiction vested in it under Section 115, C.P.C. inasmuch there is no findings that the Tribunal have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or to have acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. According to the counsel for the appellants, the High Court, therefore, erred in law in sitting as appellate jurisdiction by setting aside the well-merited and considerate judgment of the Tribunal. The further contention of the counsel for the appellants is that the respondent having known the condition stipulated in Clause 11 of the appointment order accepted the condition and joined the post and cannot be allowed to turn back and say that he has not been dealt with fairly by the appellants. It is further argued that the appointment of the respondent has expired by efflux of time for which period he was appointed. There was no requirement of observance of the principle of natural justice in such matter.;