VIDYA KENDRA Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is by Vidya Kendra, Ghaziabad, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as " the Society ". THIS Society has established and runs an educational institution by the name of Seth Mal (Vidya Kendra) Inter College, Ghaziabad, hereinafter referred to as the College and the College is represented by a committee of management. The Society is the petitioner no 1 and the Committee of Management is petitioner no 2

(2.) THE respondent no. 2 Kase Mal, is an employee of the College and works as a CT grade teacher since 23 January, 1961, confirmed on 27 January, 1962 On 1 July, 1967 he was appointed as a trained graduate teacher in Drawing and was confirmed as such after one year. THEse facts are otherwise not relevant in the issues raised in the present writ petition

(3.) A period of probation must either end on confirmation or continues or comes to a close by the incumbent receiving the substantive appointment. Should the management seek confirmation or otherwise in reference to the probation period it must process the papers in accordance with Regulation 13. It casts an obligation upon the Head Master or the Principal to prepare confirmation papers and send them alongwith his remarks and certain other records, and place it before the Committee of Management for its consideration. The decision of the Committee of Management is to be recorded in a formal resolution. Thus, in the case of the respondent no. 2, the Principal of the College submitted his report in accordance with the regulation and the matter was put before the Committee of Management in its meeting of 18 June, 1973 to consider the matter of confirmation of the respondent no. 2 on the post of a lecturer which he was holding as a probationer. The Committee of Management decided not to grant a substantive appointment to the respondent no. 2 and confirm him on the post which he was holding as it was not satisfied with his services during the period of probation. It sets on record a resolution to this effect on 18 June, 1973, and forwarded it to the office of the District Inspector of Schools, the next day. While the matter was reaching the District Inspector of Schools on 19 June, 1973 two things happened simultaneously. First, the District Inspector of Schools was considering the resolution of the Committee of Management and the other, the respondent no. 2 was applying for leave to absent himself from the scene of affairs and not to present himself in the College until it was to reopen on 8 July, 1973 after the summer vacations. The absence of the respondent no. 2 between 19 June, 1973 to 8 July, 1973 at some stage will become a relevant factor as much argument has taken place on the advantage to be derived during the period of his absence.