RAVINDRA SINGH YADAV Vs. SAINIK SCHOOL SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 24. 5. 2002 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 3. 5. 2002 (Annex. 9) passed by the respondent No. 2 Principal, Sainik School, Chittorgarh by which the services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from 30. 06. 2002 holding that his services were now no more required by the respondent No. 1 Sainik School, Chittorgarh, be quashed and set aside and further, the respondents be directed to take the petitioner back in service, as if the impugned order of termination Annex. 9 was not passed, with all consequential benefits.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows :- An advertisement dated 30. 9. 2000 (Annex. 1) was issued by the respondent No. 1 Sainik School, Chittorgarh inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Librarian and since the petitioner was fulfilling the requisite qualifications, therefore, in pursuance of the said advertisement Annex. 1, the petitioner applied for the said post of librarian and he was directed to appear in the written test and he appeared in the written test on 10. 11. 2000 and in the written test, he was declared successful and thereafter, he was called for interview on 25. 11. 2000 and after adjudging his suitability, he was offered appointment vide order dated 19. 12. 2000 (Annex. 2 ). A perusal of the said appointment order Annex. 2 reveals that the petitioner was given appointment to the post of Librarian for a period of 89 days. THE further case of the petitioner is that though the post of Librarian was substantive one, but the respondents issued appointment order Annex. 2 for only 89 days and it was further mentioned in the appointment order Annex. 2 that in case the petitioner was found fit, his case would be considered for regular appointment as per the Sainik Schools Society Rules and Regulations (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules and Regulations") and thus, the appointment of the petitioner was on adhoc basis. THE further case of the petitioner is that after completion of 89 days, another appointment order dated 3. 4. 2001 (Annex. 3) was issued by the respondent No. 2 Principal of Sainik School stating therein that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Adhoc Librarian from 4. 4. 2001 to 30. 4. 2001. THE further case of the petitioner is that thereafter, another appointment order dated 30. 4. 2001 (Annex. 4) was issued by the respondent No. 2 Principal, Sainik School, Chittorgarh by which the petitioner was put on probation for a period of one year and it was further stated in that appointment order Annex. 4 that the said period of probation for one year could be extended to two years at the discretion of the Principal and it was further stated in that appointment order Annex. 4 that the petitioner had to confirm acceptance of that offer by returning the attached certificate duly signed. THE further case of the petitioner is that after issuance of appointment order Annex. 4 dated 30. 4. 2001, another order dated 2. 5. 2001 (Annex. 5) was issued by the respondent No. 2 Principal, Sainik School incorporating some conditions in the appointment order of the petitioner dated 30. 4. 2001 (Annex. 4) and one of the conditions mentioned in the order Annex. 5 dated 2. 5. 2001 was that the services of the petitioner, who was on probation, might be terminated without assigning any reason with one month's notice and furthermore, his services might be terminated even without notice and without assigning any reason on disciplinary grounds. THE further case of the petitioner is that he performed his duties as Librarian satisfactorily and for that, a certificate Annex. 6 dated 13. 8. 2001 was issued by the authority of the respondent No. 1 Sainik School. THE further case of the petitioner is that he sought permission for appearing in M. Lib. Science examinations and the same was granted to him through order Annex. 7 dated 4. 10. 2001. THE further case of the petitioner is that on 28. 2. 2002, through counselling letter Annex. 8, he was warned for not complying with some directions. THE further case of the petitioner is that thereafter, impugned order Annex. 9 dated 3. 5. 2002 was passed by the respondent No. 2 Principal, Sainik School, Chittorgarh by which the services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from 30. 6. 2002. In this writ petition, that impugned order of termination Annex. 9 dated 3. 5. 2002 has been challenged by the petitioner on various grounds and some of them are as follows :- (i) That the impugned order of termination Annex. 9 cannot be termed as termination simpliciter and, therefore, without taking disciplinary proceedings, the impugned termination order Annex. 9 is bad in law. (ii) That before terminating the services of the petitioner through impugned order Annex. 9, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and thus, principles of natural justice have been violated in the present case and from this point of view also, the impugned termination order Annex. 9 is bad in law and should be quashed and set aside. (iii) That as per the appointment order, the assessment of petitioner's service should have been made on 1. 7. 2002, but the respondent No. 2 Principal has passed the order two months prior and, therefore, it is clear that the impugned termination order Annex. 9 is non-set as per the terms and conditions of the appointment order and thus, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. (iv) That since the initial appointment of the petitioner was for 89 days and it was further extended for one month and thereafter, he was put on probation for one year, therefore, in these circumstances, his appointment should have been treated as regular appointment and services of regular appointee could not be terminated in the manner as has been done in the present case and thus, from this point of view also, the impugned termination order Annex. 9 cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed and set side. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and they have placed reliance on Clauses 10. 17 to 10. 20 of the Rules and Regulations and since an alternative remedy of appeal is provided under the Rules and Regulations, therefore, the writ petition is premature and should be dismissed on that ground alone. On merits, it has been contended by the respondents that the terms and conditions on which the appointment was issued to the petitioner were accepted by the petitioner himself through acceptance letter Annex. R/1 dated 2. 5. 2001. So far as the issuance of letter Annex. 5 dated 2. 5. 2001 by which some terms and conditions were incorporated, is concerned, it has been submitted by the respondents that the said letter Annex. 5 is not an order amounting to appointment order but simply a compliance of directions issued by the Board of Governor's Sainik School Society, New Delhi vide letter No. 22 (1)/97/d/scc and by this letter, the respondent Sainik School was informed of certain changes incorporated in the terms and conditions of the service of the employees of the Sainik Schools and thus, formal changes to that effect were made in the petitioner's appointment order. It was further submitted by the respondents that the services of the petitioner were terminated for the simple reason that the appointment order itself empowered the respondents to terminate his services at any time during the period of probation and the impugned termination order Annex. 9 was not passed by way of punishment and it should be regarded as termination simpliciter and, therefore, it could not be challenged. Hence, this writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.

(3.) THERE is also no dispute on the point that through order Annex. 5 dated 2. 5. 2001, some conditions were incorporated in the appointment of the petitioner, which was made through Annex. 4 dated 30. 4. 2001 and the relevant condition No. 4 mentioned in Annex. 5 is quoted here :- " 4. You will be on probation for a period of one year extendable to 2 years as per Sainik Schools Society's Rules and regulations. On successful completion of probation period you may be considered for confirmation in the above post. During the period of probation your services may be terminated by the appointing authority without assigning any reason with one month's notice. Your services may also be terminated without notice and without assigning any reason on disciplinary grounds. The previous service rendered by you in organisation other than Sainik Schools will be considered for counting of persionary benefits at the time of retirement provided. . . . . "