JITENDRA Vs. DINESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent of learned counsel of both sides petitions are heard finally at the stage of admission.

(2.) Both these petitions filed by the Management of the Ashram School as well as employee appointed in the post which became vacant on termination of respondent No.1, take exception to the order dtd. 14/3/2024 passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal bearing No.33/2020, whereby reinstatement of respondent No.1 is directed.

(3.) The facts which they appear from the record and are relevant for the decision of the petition are narrated in brief as under : It is the case of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2635/2024 that the petitioner No.1 runs petitioner No.2 Ashram School. On 12/4/2005 an advertisement was issued by the Management in daily newspaper 'Lokdut' inviting applications for the appointment for the post of Superintendent in petitioner No.2 School. The respondent No.1 was interviewed amongst other applicants and came to be selected. He was issued order of appointment No.28/2005. It is the case of the Management that the respondent No.1 was appointed for a fixed period and that he accepted the said appointment. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent No.1 that the said appointment was on probation as mentioned in the letter of appointment. There is no dispute about the fact that the said appointment was granted approval by District Social Welfare Officer by order dtd. 31/3/2006. The respondent No.1 claims that his appointment was against vacant permanent post and, therefore, he could not have been appointed for a fixed period and in fact his appointment was on probation. He claims that he was not allowed to sign the muster roll and thereby his services otherwise came to be terminated.