- (1.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 filed an appeal under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Non- Government Educational institutions Act, 1989 (for short, 'Act of 1989'). The case of the respondent No.2 was that he was appointed by the petitioner as Teacher Gr. II on 01/09/1994 and thereafter appointed as Lecturer on probation on 01/07/1996. The respondent No.2 was holding the post of Lecturer, School Education in Chemistry on regular basis and the same was approved by the concerned authority. On 31/05/1997, the respondent No.2 was communicated an order of termination as he was on probation and the petitioner did not find his work to be satisfactory. This order came into effect from 30/06/1997. The respondent No.2, being aggrieved, preferred an appeal under Section 19 of the Act of 1989 before RNGET. The respondent No.2 had taken a stand that the order dt.31/05/1997 was contrary to Rule 30 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-aid and Service conditions etc.) Rules, 1993 (for short, 'Rules of 1993'). Rule 30 of the Rules of 1993 provided that services of a probationer could be terminated only with the prior approval of the authority competent to make appointment.
(2.) The petitioner filed detailed reply to the appeal while taking a stand that the order dt.31/05/1997 was merely an intimation for non-extension of the period of probation and the respondent no.2 thereafter did not continue. The petitioner opposed the appeal on the ground that as it was a case of simple non-extension of services on account of his services being unsatisfactory during the probation period, therefore, the recourse to regular enquiry or any other enquiry did not apply in the present facts and circumstances. Certain facts regarding misdemeanor of the respondent No.2 were brought on record showing conduct of the respondent no.2 but the same may not be relevant as the law of probation does not have very strict parameters for termination simplicitor.
(3.) Learned RNGET passed judgment dt.27/05/2000 in favour of the respondent No.2 quashing the termination order dt.31/05/1997 principally on the ground that it did not carry approval of the competent authority. The petitioner preferred SB Civil Writ Petition No.3129/2000 against the judgment of the learned RNGET dt.27/05/2000 which came to be dismissed vide judgment dt.20/09/2000. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1062/2000 which came to be accepted by Division bench of this Court vide judgment dt.16/08/2001 by which, while quashing the judgment and order of the RNGET dt.27/05/2000, the matter was remanded back to the RNGET for fresh consideration while directing the RNGET to decide the application dt.25/09/1999 which was pertaining to the compromise between both the parties.;