V.K. Singhal, J. - (1.) This petition has been filed challenging the order of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur dated 18.10.1994. The controversy in the present matter was that the respondent Mahendra Kumar Rana was appointed as Class IV employee vide order dated 6.7.1992 on ad hoc basis. The services of the petitioner were temporary in nature which were extended from time to time and the last extension was till 30.6.1994. The Managing Committee of the school took a decision in its Board meeting on 21.5.1994 to abolish the temporary ad hoc posts on which the respondent was working and accordingly informed the respondent vide order dated 31.5.1994 that his services shall stand terminated w.e.f. 30.6.1994 and one month's pay was also sent along with notice. The respondent preferred an appeal under section 19 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 before the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur. The Tribunal considered the matter and came to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 1989 and Rule 39 of the Rules of 1993 have not been followed and as such the order of termination is contrary to the Act and the Rules as no opportunity was given of hearing nor prior permission from the Director of Education was taken and the notice of six months which was required to be given under the rule has also not been give. The contention of the management for abolition of the post was also considered and it was found that no evidence was produced with regard to abolition of the post. One of the contentions that grant in aid is not available on such post was considered of no avail since at the time when the appointment was give, the grant-in-aid in respect of payment of salary on such post was not available.
(2.) Mr. Pareek appearing on behalf of the respondent has drawn my attention towards the decision given in the case of the petitioner Maheshwari Senior Hr. Secondary School and another v. Bhika Ram Sharma, S.B. Civil writ Petition No.257/95 decided on 3.5.1995 where the contention of the petitioner that the removal of the service of temporary employee is not governed by the provisions of Rule 39 and Section 18 of the Act was negatived. It was left open to the management to dispense with the services of the petitioner after complying with the provisions of Section 18. It has also been pointed out that the special appeal against the said order has also been dismissed on 29.8.1995.
(3.) Mr. Sharma appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied the decision of Apex Court in the case of P.L. Dhingra v. UCI, AIR 1958 SC 36 wherein it was observed by the Apex Court that the principle is that when a servant has right to a post or to a rank either under the terms of the contract of employment express or implied, or under the rules governing the conditions of service, the termination of the service of such a servant or his reduction to a lower post is by itself and prima-facie punishment for it operates as a forfeiture of his right to hold that post on that rank and to get the emoluments and other benefits attached thereto. if the servant has no right for the post, permanent or temporary either on probation or on an officiating basis and whose temporary service has not ripened into a quasi-permanent service as defined in the Temporary Service Rules, the termination of his service does not deprive him of any right and cannot, therefore, by itself be a punishment.;