N.L. Tibrewal, J. - (1.) In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, educational institution is challenging the order dated- October 18, 1994 passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (for short referred to as 'the Tribunal'). By this impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Teacher-respondent No. 1 whereby the order dated-15.5.93 terminating his service was set aside with further direction to reinstate him in service with back wages and other allowances.
(2.) In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, some necessary facts may be stated which are not much in dispute. The respondent Teacher was given appointment on the post of Science Teacher w.e.f. 25.7.92 for a period of three months upto 25.10.92 on a consolidated salary of As. 1900/- per month inclusive of all allowances vide appointment letter dated, 22.7.92 (Annex. 1). In the letter it was also stated that the appointment was purely on adhoc -basis and terminable at any time without assigning any reason by one month's notice or one month's salary in lieu thereof by the Management. It was also stated that appointment will automatically come to an end on the last day of session. Thereafter, the period was extended from time to time and ultimately the Teacher's service was terminated from 15th May 1993, being the last day of academic session. The Teacher challenged his termination order by preferring an appeal before the Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner, but after constitution of the Tribunal in terms of Section 21(2) of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational ,Institutions Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act'), the Director, Primary and Secondary Education, asked the Teacher to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Teacher preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the same was allowed vide impugned order dated, 18.10.1994. Before the Tribunal, the plea of the Teaches was that service was terminated without giving one month's prior notice or one month's salary in lieu thereof by the Management and that the Management did not obtain prior permission of the Director, Education Department. It was also pleaded inter-alia that he was not given any opportunity of bring heard before his removal from service and that the Management has given appointment subsequently to the Teachers who are junior in service. The name of Miss Sudha Mathur was given in this connection. The Tribunal accepted the contentions raised on behalf of the Teacher and allowed the appeal.
(3.) The contention of Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Management, is that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on ad hoc basis as a measure of stop-gap arrangement and it was terminable without any notice. Learned counsel contended that in the appointment letter itself, it was made clear that the appointment will automatically come to an end on the last day of session and 15th May, 1993 being the last day of the session, the service of the Teacher automatically came to an end by efflux of time. It was also contended that appointments do not confer any right on the appointees to continue on the post or for a regular appointment to such posts. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Purshottam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36 ; Institute of Management Development, U.P. v. Pushpa Srivastava (S.C.), 1992 (81) FJR 565 , Sant Ram Bhai v. State of Haryana (P & H), 1993 (66) FLR 86 , P. Ramchandran v. Kolacherry Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangam and others, 1993 (82) FJR 485 .;