Nanavati, J. - (1.) The appellant was appointed as a Lecture on probation for a period of one year from 6th August, 1970 in the college run by Respondent No. 1. In May 1971, the Principal of the college submitted a report to the Management that performance of the appellant was not satisfactory and that he was not fit to be continued in service. The Management at its meeting held on 20th June, 1971, considered that report and passed a resolution for termination of service of the appellant. The college being a recognised institution under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools was necessary for effectively terminating the service of the appellant and therefore, the resolution-cum-proposal of the Management was forwarded to the concerned District Inspector. After considering the same the District Inspector by his order dated 5th July, 1971, accorded approval. Thereupon the Management terminated the petitioner's service on 6th July, 1971, The appellant preferred an appeal to the Deputy Director of Education. By an order dated 15th March, 1972 he allowed the appeal and held the termination invalid on the ground that neither one months' notice nor one month's pay in lieu of notice was given to the appellant as required by Regulation 25 framed under Section 16 C of the Act.
(2.) Against that order the Management filed Writ Petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3171 of 1972 in the Allahabad High Court. It was not disputed before the High Court that Regulation 25 which reads as under: "25. The services of a temporary employee (other than a probationer) or of a probationer during the terms of his probation, may be terminated at any time by giving him one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof." was applicable. It was also not in dispute that neither one month's notice nor one month's pay in lieu thereof was given to the appellant. The High Court construing Regulation 25 held that though giving of one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof is necessary that is not a condition precedent to the exercise of power under that regulation and therefore, even if one month's notice is not given or one month's pay is not paid at the time of termination that will not render termination of service invalid but will make the employee entitled to one month's salary only. The High Court took this view following its earlier decision in Director of Technical Education v. Jan Mohammad, (1975) 1 All LR 8 and allowed the petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant relying upon a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Managing Committee, Sohan Lal Higher Secondary School v. Sheo Dutt Gupta, 1974 All LJ 465 contended that Section 16-G (3) (a) of the Act applies to a probationer also and therefore the service of a probationer cannot be terminated unless notice of termination is served after obtaining approval of the Inspector. He further submitted that Regulation 25 requires giving of one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof. As one month's notice was not given to the appellant nor was he paid one month's pay, termination of his service ought to have been held as invalid. In S. D. Gupta's case two points which arose for consideration were whether the notice of termination of the services of the probationer teacher could be served before the according of approval by the District Inspector of Schools and secondly whether in the facts and circumstances of the case service of the notice of termination prior to the granting of the approval could be condoned. The Allahabad High Court held that Section 16-G (3) (a) which provides that no principal, Head Master or teacher may be discharged or removed or dismissed from service or reduced in rank or subjected to any distinction in emoluments or served with notice of termination of service except with the prior approval in writing of the Inspector, having been worded generally applies to every case of termination of service where prior to the termination some notice has to be given and therefore it applies to probationer also. In that case notice of termination of service was given and therefore the High Court had not to consider the question as to what could be the effect of not giving the requisite notice. Therefore reliance placed upon S. D. Gupta's case is really misplaced.;