RAVI S.DHAVAN - (1.) THIS petition is by Vidya Kendra, Ghaziabad, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as " the Society ". THIS Society has established and runs an educational institution by the name of Seth Mal (Vidya Kendra) Inter College, Ghaziabad, hereinafter referred to as the College and the College is represented by a committee of management. The Society is the petitioner no 1 and the Committee of Management is petitioner no 2
(2.) THE respondent no. 2 Kase Mal, is an employee of the College and works as a CT grade teacher since 23 January, 1961, confirmed on 27 January, 1962 On 1 July, 1967 he was appointed as a trained graduate teacher in Drawing and was confirmed as such after one year. THEse facts are otherwise not relevant in the issues raised in the present writ petition During the year 1972 a post of a lecturer in Mathematics was vacant. The post was advertised for seeking applications from rhe eligible candidates. The respondent no 2 was one amongst many others who had applied and the institution selected him in preference to an outside candidate and permitted him to work on this post from 8 july, 1972. Inevitably, the Committee of Management was obliged to seek the approval of the District Inspector of Schools on the recommendations male by the Selection Committee to appoint the respondent no. 2. It is the respondent's case that he was appointed on probation of one year. On this there is no issue. This has to be so as the conditions of service prescribed under Chapter III of the Regulation under section 16-G of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 spell out the period of probation under Regulation 8 for one year. An appointment even on probation cannot be made without the approval of the District Inspector of Schools and the appointment on probation takes effect from the date when the approval or sanction has been granted. The approval also signified the date since when the appointment is to take effect. The appointment and approval is to be seen in the context of the law when the appointment was made and to take effect as the procedure prescribed it. In 1972, the relevant provision was Section 16-F. In reference to the present context it read- "16-F (1) Subject to the provisions hereinafter specified no person shall be appointed as a.........teacher in a recognised institution unless he- (a)............ (b) has been recommended by a Selection Committee constituted under subsection (2) or (3), as the case may be of the said section and approved,......and in the case of a teacher by the Inspector." As these are matters of record and law there is no issue on this. The approval granted by the District Inspector of Schools in permitting the appointment on probation is with effect from 1-8-1972 This implies that the respondent no. 2 was appointed on the post of a lecturer in Mathematics on probation of one year, with effect from this date.
(3.) A period of probation must either end on confirmation or continues or comes to a close by the incumbent receiving the substantive appointment. Should the management seek confirmation or otherwise in reference to the probation period it must process the papers in accordance with Regulation 13. It casts an obligation upon the Head Master or the Principal to prepare confirmation papers and send them alongwith his remarks and certain other records, and place it before the Committee of Management for its consideration. The decision of the Committee of Management is to be recorded in a formal resolution. Thus, in the case of the respondent no. 2, the Principal of the College submitted his report in accordance with the regulation and the matter was put before the Committee of Management in its meeting of 18 June, 1973 to consider the matter of confirmation of the respondent no. 2 on the post of a lecturer which he was holding as a probationer. The Committee of Management decided not to grant a substantive appointment to the respondent no. 2 and confirm him on the post which he was holding as it was not satisfied with his services during the period of probation. It sets on record a resolution to this effect on 18 June, 1973, and forwarded it to the office of the District Inspector of Schools, the next day. While the matter was reaching the District Inspector of Schools on 19 June, 1973 two things happened simultaneously. First, the District Inspector of Schools was considering the resolution of the Committee of Management and the other, the respondent no. 2 was applying for leave to absent himself from the scene of affairs and not to present himself in the College until it was to reopen on 8 July, 1973 after the summer vacations. The absence of the respondent no. 2 between 19 June, 1973 to 8 July, 1973 at some stage will become a relevant factor as much argument has taken place on the advantage to be derived during the period of his absence. The District Inspector of Schools awarded approval to the decision of the Committee of Management not to continue the probation or confirmation of the services of the respondent no. 2 by his letter of 25 June, 1973. The Committee of Management acted upon this communication of the District Inspector of Schools the very next day, but it was a matter of record that the respondent no. 2 chose not to make himself available and not to return till 9 July, 1973. An issue was being raised on when he could actually receive this communication. Thus, while there was a dispute that the letter sent by the Committee of Management on 27 June, 1973 by the registered post as well as under certificate of posting was not received by the respondent no. 2, the latter accepts that he received this letter according to his own logic when he returned to the college on 9 July, 1973.;