PURUSHOTTAM NAGAR Vs. RAJ HINDI GRANTH ACADEMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter appears to be having a chequered history. THE petitioner was initially appointed as Director of the respondent-Academy on probation for two years vide order dated 30. 12. 1981. THE period of probation came to be extended from time to time till 8. 1. 1985 when the period of probation came to be an end. THE order of non-extension passed on 8. 1. 1985 came to be challenged by the petitioner by way of filing a writ petition before this court. During the pendency of the above writ petition, the petitioner was allowed to join his duties as Director of the Academy in pursuance to orders passed by the State Government on 2. 1. 1990. After joining his duties on 2. 1. 1990, apprehending his termination, the petitioner again preferred a writ petition before this court. Apart from holding the respondent-Academy as not a State so as to attract Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 7. 3. 1991. However, an observation was also made that inspite of order dated 2. 1. 1990 passed in favour of the petitioner by the concerning authorities, the petitioner can only be treated as a probationer. It may also be pertinent to mention here that after passing of the order dated 2. 1. 1990, the petitioner withdrew his writ petition on 2. 3. 1990. THE legality of termination order initially passed on 8. 1. 1985, remained undecided. While dismissing the writ petition on 7. 3. 1991, this court also without deciding the legality of order dated 2. 1. 1990 gave liberty to the respondents to take fresh action against the petitioner in accordance with law. THE order dated 7. 3. 1991 passed by this court was affirmed by the Division Bench vide order dated 24. 1. 1992. THE SLP filed by the petitioner also came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 25. 3. 1992. However, the question in regard to the respondent-Academy been a State or not was left open.

(2.) IT appears that in the context of order dated 2. 1. 1990, another resolution was passed by the executive committee of the respondent-Academy on 8. 5. 1990. However, the same could not be given effect to in view of pendency of litigation before this court as also the Supreme Court. After dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court on 25. 3. 1992, the impugned order dated 31. 3. 1992 came to be passed by the respondents holding the order dated 2. 1. 1990 to be wholly without jurisdiction and non-est and further treating the services of the petitioner having terminated w. e. f. 8. 1. 1985. The salary paid to the petitioner in pursuance to order dated 2. 1. 1990 was also ordered to be recovered.