BAJRANG LAL SHARMA DR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJASTHAN Shikshan Prashikshan Vidyapeeth Samiti, Shahpura Bagh, Amber Road, Jaipur, the respondent No. 2 Herein, (hereinafter to be referred as the society) is a society registered under the societies registration act and is running acollege under the name of prachya vidya-peeth. dr. bajrang lal sharma, the petitioner, was appointed on the post of lecturer (vyakarana) vide order dated 3-9-1987 after being selected by the selection committee of the society and was placed on probation for a period of one year. The period of probation of the petiti-oner expired on 6-8-1988, but no order of confirmation or terminating the services of the petitioner was passed and he continued to be in service till vide order dated 6-10-1990 his period of probation was extended till further orders vide order dated 15-2-1991 the society terminated the services of the petitioner with immediate effect the petitioner, thereupon, filed a writ petition in this court under article 226 of the constitution of India stating that the society was getting 60% aid from the Government of RAJASTHAN and the recruitment and service conditions of the teachers appointed in the college run by the society were regulated under the provisions of Grant-in-aid to Non-Governmental Educational,cultural and Physical Education Institutions in RAJASTHAN Rules, 1963 (the 1963 Rules) and that the appointments were to be made by a Selection Committee consisting of the members which necessarily had to include a nominee of Sanskrit Education Department of the State of RAJASTHAN and that the disciplinary control also vested in the Government as an appeal had been provided against the order of punishment passed by the society. It has been alleged that the appointment of the petitioner had been approved by the Sanskrit Education Department vide order dated 7-2-1971 issued by the Director of Sanskrit Education, RAJASTHAN, who had sent copy of the said order to the society. The petitioner stated that the society had arbitrarily and unjustifiably terminated the services of the petitioner and that he had personally approached the principal of the college as well as the Secretary of the society and had brought to their notice that he was a confirmed Lecturer as his appointment had been approved by the Director, Sanskrit Education, RAJASTHAN and that he was being removed from service without giving any opportunity of hearing although his period of probation, which could not be extended beyond two years, had long expired. The petitioner prayed that the order dated 15-2-1991 terminating his services be quashed and set aside and the society be restrained from making any selection to the post of Lecturer (Vyakarana) in pursuance of the advertisement already issued in this respect and further to pay all dues to him with interest. The matter came up for admission before a learned Single Judge of this court, who noted that there was conflict in some of the decisions of this court about the maintainability of the writ petition and framed the following two questions for being adjudicated by a Bench of three Judges; (1) whether a private educational institution, which receives grant-in-aid from the Government and which is governed by the provisions contained in 1963 Rules can be considered as an agency or instrumentality of the State and, therefore, amenable to writ jurisdiction; and (2) whether the persons employed in such institutions are entitled to the remedy of reinstatement? The matter was placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice under whose order this reference has been placed before us.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides hearing the learned members of the Bar Associations at Jaipur as well as Jodhpur who were nice enough to attend the court and address arguments to assist the court to come to a rightful decision.

(3.) IN Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust V. VR Rudani (4), it was held that a trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act and which was receiving aid and was discharging public function by way of imparting education to the students, was amenable to writ jurisdiction.