K C THOMAS Vs. R L GADEOCK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is only one petitioner in this case. The two respondents are -- (i) Principal, Sainik School, TiJaiya, district Hazaribagh and (ii) the Chairman, Board of Governors, Sainik School Society, Central Secretariat, New-Delhi. The petitioner's case is that the Sainik School Society was formed in 1961 and was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Act 21 of 1860 hereinafter called the 'Act'). The control of the Society is vested in the Board of Governors. The purpose of the Society is to run a type of public school for preparing boys for entry into the National Defence Academy and other walks of life. The Society aforesaid started the Tilaiya Sainik School in September, 1963. On 1st October, 1965, the petitioner was appointed as an Upper Division Assistant in the Tilaiya Sainik School by the then Principal of the School. The appointment was in a permanent staff of probation for one year or more at the discretion of the Principal and it was with effect from 8th October, 1965. The petitioner's case in the sixth paragraph of the petition is that he was appointed in accordance with the letter dated 1st October, 1965, enclosed with which was a typed copy of the service conditions as an appendix. The petitioner accepted the same and signed appendix B. The letter of appointment along with the enclosures is annexure 1 to the writ application. The petitioner was confirmed in due course after expiry of the period of one year's probation and was appointed Office Superintendent on a permanent basis which post he held until he was dismissed by the first respondent by the impugned order dated 13th June, 1968, a copy of which is annexure 6 to the writ application. The petitioner has stated various facts in his petition to show that respondent No. 1 has wrongly dismissed him from service in violation of the rules of the Society governing the service conditions of the Tilaiya Sainik School and in a mala fide prejudicial manner. It is not necessary to go into the details of those facts as, in my opinion, this application, for the reasons to be stated hereinafter has to fail on a short point.

(2.) In his petition the petitioner nowhere claimed that he was holding any civil post under the Union or a State or, that he was a member of the Civil Service of the Union or a State nor did he claim that he had the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. By attacking the order of dismissal made by respondent No. 1 on several other grounds, the prayer in the petition was to quash the impugned order (annexure 61 by grant of a writ of certiorari.

(3.) A counter affidavit was put in by respondent No. 1 challenging the various facts and grounds of attack on the dismissal order made by him, against the petitioner. As I have not thought it necessary to refer to those facts in any detail, I do not propose to state the facts stated in the counter affidavit either. An affidavit in reply was filed by the petitioner. In the fifteenth paragraph of the affidavit in reply, the statement made by the petitioner is-- "That the Sainik School is founded and managed by a Board formed by the members of the Central Government and the Government of Bihar and the Chairman of the Board of Governors is the Defence Minister of India and the finance for the running of the School is supplied by the Central Government and the Government of Bihar and the employees are, according to the School authorities themselves, amenable to rules of Civil Service Conduct Rules and the deponent is therefore, entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and the contentions made in paragraph No. 35 of the counter affidavit is not correct."