- (1.) The petitioner is challenging the order dated 15.2.91 (ann.3) removing him from service from the post of Lecturer (Vyakarna), when he was employed with respondent No.2, having been so appointed on 3.9.87 (ann.1). It is the case of petitioner that his probation period had expired on 6.8.88, but it was on 16.10.90 when his period of probation was extended till further orders vide annexure-2. Even though certain allegations have been made in regard to punitive order of removal, but in my opinion there is hardly any necessity to go into that aspect of the case for the reason that after completing more than three years of service, the petitioner was deemed to have been confirmed automatically in view of the Grant in Aid Rules called Rajasthan Grant-in aid to Educational and Cultural Institutions Rules, 1963. It is not denied that respondent No.2 was in receipt of Grant in aid to the extent of 60%. It was also not denied that the petitioner was appointed on aided post.
(2.) Counsel for respondent vehemently states that the Grant in aid Rules are not applicable to the Institution as such, according to him, there is no such service condition providing maximum period of probation. The contention of respondent is not sustainable. A full bench judgment of this court in this very case on a reference made to the effect whether this institution was State or Not ?, while answering in affirmative vide its order dated 19.4.94 (Hon. Mr. N.C. Kochhar, J.; Hon. Mr. R.S. Kejriwal, J.; and Hon. Mr. M.R. Calla, J.) had held that this aided Institution was a State and amenable to the writ jurisdiction. It was also observed that the educational institution before commencement of the Act, 1989 which was enforced in the year 1992 were bound by the terms and conditions mentioned under the 1963 Rules. The contention of counsel for respondent that relief of reinstatement could not have been given involving private educational institutions was also negated. It was also observed that the High Court can exercise the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in appropriate cases in quashing the order of removal and dismissal of employees from service and issue direction for his reinstatement. The full bench on the reference in this very case had observed as under: "Before the commencement of the Act the educational institutions, receiving aid from the Government, were bound by the terms and conditions mentioned under the 1963 Rules and an argument that the employees wrongfully dismissed could not be given the relief of reinsatement is not open to the private educational institutions. This right of an employee has been recognised by the Act and is thus a statutory right. In Vaish Degree College case and Dipak Kumar Biswas case (supra) there were no rules or statutory provision for an appeal to an appellate authority and it has not been disputed before us that while hearing an appeal the appellate authority has the power to set aside the order of dismissal and to order reinstatement. If this power can be exercised by the appellate authority under the 1963 Rules or the Act there is no reason why the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot, in appropriate cases, quash the orders removing or dismissing the employee from service and issue directions for his reinstatement. We, therefore, hold that a person employed in private educational institution, on being dismissed or removed from service, is entitled to claim the relief of reinstatement. Question No.2 is answered accordingly."
(3.) From the perusal of Grant in aid Rules and under Rule 4, which prescribe the conditions of service, it has been clearly mentioned that the conditions of service of every member of the teaching and ministerial staff appointed substantively shall be governed by an agreement executed by him and the management as appendix III. The clause of appendix III specifically mentions that the employee shall be employed in the first instance for one year on probation and period of probation shall in no case exceed two years and if at the end of the period of two years, the teacher is not found competent or otherwise suitable, his appointment shall be terminated.;