- (1.) Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard and the record perused.
(2.) There is no dispute that respondent No.4- School is a Government aided School, though the plea raised in both set of the written statements of the respondents is that grant-in-aid is upto the middle school level. That, however, is enough for attracting the provisions of the Haryana Aided Schools ( Security of Service ) Act, 1971 ( for short referred to as the " Act of 1971"). The question that a particular post should be sanctioned by the State Government for applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1971 was repelled by this Court in Ram Narain Tyagi V. State of Haryana and others,1985 2 SLR 100. The expression 'employee' as defined in Section 2(d) of the Act was interpreted as including all the employees of the aided private school, who work on whole-time basis, irrespective of the fact whether the posts against which they are working are approved or sanctioned by the Department or not. No precedent contrary to the aforesaid principle was cited.
(3.) The controversy in this petition would centre round the issue as to whether the petitioner was an 'employee' of respondents No.4 and 5 for entitling him to the relief claimed. When respondents No.4 and 5 have challenged the genuineness of the alleged appointment letter relied upon by the petitioner as forged and fabricated, the remedy for the petitioner was to file a suit to prove its authenticity by adducing appropriate evidence. A photo copy of the appointment letter was placed on record by the petitioner's Counsel, perusal whereof would show that the attack to the genuineness of this letter is not unfounded. This is an undated letter mentioning therein that on the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk on regular basis with effect from April 22,1990.;