VERMA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is a Post-graduate being M. Sc. in Chemistry and also possession the degree of Ph. D. , was employed as a Principal in the regular selection scale in Swami Pranavanand Mahavidhyalaya, Chattarpur which is a registered Educational society under the Societies Registration Act. Respondent No. 1 i. e. National Council for Teachers Education (here-in-after referred to as the Council) which is a creature of the statute with the objects to achieve plan and gravity development of the Teachers Education System in the country and to regulate and proper maintenance of norms and standards of the Teachers Education System. THE Parliament had enacted National Council of Teachers Education enacted National Council of Teachers Education Act 1993 which was enforced and made effective from 1. 7. 1995. THE council was empowered to frame regulations governing the appointment and conditions of services of the officers and other employees of the council.
(2.) THE council respondent No. 1 had invited applications through advertisement dated 15. 9. 1995 for various posts vide Annexure-2. THE petitioner was also one of the candidate for such appointment. He was fulfilling the conditions of eligibility. THE selection committee constituted by the Council found the petitioner to be suitable on the post of Regional Director after holding the interviews of eligible candidates and the petitioner was so appointed on 5. 3. 1996 vide Annexure-3. In compliance of the appointment order dated 5. 3. 1996, the petitioner had joined the post of Deputy Secretary/regional Director on 26. 3. 1996. It is the case of the petitioner that even though vide Annexure-2 while inviting applications it was nowhere mentioned that the post in question was to be considered on deputation but while appointing the petitioner, it was mentioned in Annexure-3 that the petitioner is being appointed for a period of one year in the first instance with the likelihood of extension when no such condition was put in the advertisement. It was also mentioned in Annexure-3, on the heading of the subject, that the appointment to the post of Deputy Secretary/regional Director of Regional Committee (NCTE) Jaipur/bhopal/bhubaneshwar/bangalore is on deputation, Vide Annexure-5 dated 29. 4. 1997, the deputation period was extended for one year w. e. f. 25. 3. 1997 or till regular incumbent is appointed. Even though the petitioner was employee of a private non- aided institution, a Shiksha Samiti, before joining the present officer, and there could not be any question of keeping the lien, as normally the lien is kept in regard to the permanent employee or a person in government or semi-government organisation but still the respondent No. 2 Shiksha Samiti had informed the respondent No. 1 that it was not possible for it to grant permission for further extension of deputation to the petitioner or to keep his lien vide its letter Annexure-6 dated 12. 3. 1998, and it was so repeated vide letter Annexure-7 dated 23. 3. 1998. The petitioner on 26. 3. 1998 informed the council that he should be told of his status in view of the letters issued by the Shiksha Samiti, respondent No. 2 of not keeping the lien any more in his old employment and requested the council to apprise him the position so that his employment is protected. The Shiksha Samiti once again vide Annexure-9 dated 28. 3. 1998 informed the position to the council and ultimately vide Annexure-10 dated 22/23. 4. 1998, the Shiksha Samiti had informed the council that if no communication is received by 22. 5. 1998, Shri Shukla will not be taken back. Faced with the situation vide Annex. 11 dated 2. 5. 1998, the petitioner asked the respondent No. 1 either to make him regular or to relieve him so that he may go back to his original appointment as Principal to the Shiksha Samiti. Nothing was heard and ultimately vide Annex. 12 dated 25. 5. 1998 when the petitioner was not informed of any action being taken by the council, the former employer of the petitioner terminated the services of the petitioner by terminating the lien w. e. f. 25. 3. 1998.
(3.) FACED with the above-said situation, the petitioner once again asked the respondent No. 1 to decide his status as he was not relieved by the council to join his former employer by way of his request Annexure-13 on 1. 7. 1998 and again Annexure-14 on 30. 1. 1999, Annexure-15 dated 4. 2. 1999, Annexure-16 dated 11. 2. 1999 asking the council to regularise the services without any further delay. On 25. 2. 1999 i. e. much after the former employer of the petitioner had terminated the services of the petitioner for not joining back, the council had decided to repatriate the petitioner Dr. Shukla on completion of deputation of three years by informing his earlier employer. The petitioner was asked to hand over the charge vide order dt. 8. 3. 1999 (Annex.- 18 ). The respondent No. 2 Shiksha Samiti to whom the respondent No. 1 had informed that the petitioner stood repatriated now, wrote back to the council that despite repeated requests, the petitioner was not relieved to join back and therefore, the lien of the petitioner on the earlier post stood terminated w. e. f. 26. 3. 1998 at the risk of the council, meaning thereby, the council was informed that it was not possible for Shiksha Samiti to take the petitioner back with the result that the petitioner though stood repatriated, but he seems to have lost both the posts. Aggrieved by such action, the petitioner approached this court for quashing and setting aside the order dated 25. 2. 1999 and 8. 3. 1999 and to further declare that the petitioner was selected on permanent basis in the service of the council in view of advertisement or in the the lien of the petitioner by respondent No. 2 be declared as nullity. Respondent No. 1 has filed the written statement. This court while issuing notices on 24. 3. 1999 had passed an interim order of status quo to be maintained. However, the order of status quo was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Respondent No. 1 had initially filed the written statement only by taking preliminary objection to the effect that the petitioner was on deputation for three years and document Annexure-6, 16 and 19 had never been received by respondent No. 1 and, therefore, there was no question had attached a letter Annexure R-1/2. The petitioner also relies on Annexure R-1/3 dated 21. 3. 1997, whereby the petitioner had made a request to extend his deputation as per rules. The council had made certain enquiries from the former employer to inform the council to the fact whether Shri Shukla was holding the position of Assistant Professor and the post of Principal of the college, which was replied by the former employer vide Annexure R-1/6 that Shukla was holding the post of Principal since 1. 7. 1986 in the scale of Rs. 3700-5700. It is stated in the written statement that the council had finalised the recruitment rules for filling up the administrative post and has submitted them to the Central Government. The rules have been sent to the Central Government for approval. It is submitted by the respondent that there is no provision for regulation or absorption in any of the post of Regional Director and that the Council has adopted the rules of the Central Government in regard to deputation. In short the respondent No. 1 states that the petitioner could only have been appointed on deputation and not on regular basis neither he could be absorbed in the service of the council. ;