KARANAM MALLIKARJUNA RAO Vs. EDUCATIONAL APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BELGAUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Educational appellate Tribunal, Belgaum, which confirmed the order of termination by the management.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner was that he was serving as lecturer in homeopathy at Homeopathic Medical College, Belgaum. He was initially appointed as lecturer in Biology. He further stated that he was appointed as lecturer in the first respondent-college on 12-9-1967. He is a graduate in Homeopathic Medicines and Surgery. He has worked to the entire satisfaction of his superiors. But, however, all of a sudden on 18-12-1979, he was communicated by an order under the signature of respondent 2 that his services as lecturer were terminated with immediate effect and that he should be considered as relieved on 18-12- 1979. He alleged that the order of termination was served on 19-12-1979. The order contained in No. GC/274, dated 19-11-1979 is violative of the mandatory provisions of Section 8 of the Act No. 10 of 1975. The second respondent has no authority to terminate the services of the petitioner. The termination amounts to dismissal under Section 8 of the said Act. The petitioner has executed a bond while joining the services. The petitioner is deemed to have been confirmed by virtue of his having put in over "340" days of continuous service with the respondent. The bond on which the order of termination based was executed in 1972 when the appellant came to be appointed as a lecturer in Biology in the college and thereafter when he ceased to be a lecturer in Biology, he was reappointed in another post and hence the bond has become unenforceable.

(3.) IT is the case of the respondents that the services of the appellant were purely temporary in nature and are liable to be terminated at any time without notice and without assigning any reasons. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 24-1-1979. The petitioner filed appeal in KPEI A No. 1 of 1979 to the Tribunal and later he withdrew the same. While the appeal was pending, the Government has appointed the divisional Commissioner, Belgaum as the Administrator of the first respondent-Society for six months. The Divisional Commissioner acting as the Administrator has continued the services of the petitioner as per the resolution No. 19, dated 26-6-1979. The first respondent challenged the order of the Government and appointment of an Administrator in W. P. No. 6991 of 1979. This Court by its order dated 12-7-1979 has quashed the order dated 19-4-1979, as a result the first respondent again assumed the management of the college. The resolution No. 19, dated 26-6-1979 passed by the Divisional Commissioner in his capacity as the administrator of first respondent-Society continuing the services of the appellant is illegal. In lieu of three months' notice, the petitioner was paid three months' salary in advance. The petitioner did not challenge this order. The first respondent-Society has not recalled or cancelled the original order of termination dated 24-1-1979 and as such the petitioner cannot claim that he is still in service on the strength of the order of the divisional Commissioner acting as the Administrator. Since the petitioner has withdrawn the appeal, the original order of termination of services of the petitioner still holds good. As the petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis and in terms of the bond executed by him, respondent 1 had the right and authority to terminate the services as per the terms of the bond executed by the petitioner.