SADHANA GODIKA Vs. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge is the judgment dated 11.03.2014, passed by the Rajasthan Non -Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter "the Tribunal") refusing to interfere with the office order dated 17.01.2014, issued by the respondent No. 1 -Secretary, Managing Committee of Agarwal Shikshak Prashikshan Mahavidhyalya, Jaipur whereby a decision was taken to extend the term of appointment of the petitioner as Principal only till a regularly selected Principal of the College was appointed by a duly constituted Selection Committee or till 31.03.2014 whichever was earlier. And the petitioner was deemed to be relieved automatically thereafter.

(2.) The facts relevant to the challenge are few. Vide office order dated 18.01.2007, issued by the General Secretary, Shri Agarwal Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur the petitioner was appointed on the post of Principal of Agarwal Shikshak Prashikshan Mahavidhyalya, Jaipur on a purely temporary basis on a consolidated salary of Rs. 18,000/ - per month inclusive of all allowances subject inter alia to the appointment as made, being subject to the approval by the Managing Committee of Shri Agarwal Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur. The appointment was terminable on one month's notice from either side. Subsequently vide letter dated 31.01.2008, the petitioner, then continuing on the post of Principal, was again issued an appointment letter afresh with reference to her application for appointment as Principal in the College for one year on a gross salary of Rs. 19,690/ - per month subject to statutory deductions. The appointment letter however did indeed state that the petitioner's period of "probation" was further liable to be extended solely at the discretion of the General Secretary, Shri Agarwal Shiksha Samiti albeit during the period of original or the extended period of probation either side could discontinue the employment without assigning any reason on giving one month notice or amount equal to pay in lieu thereof. It was further stated that the "probation" would continue till the Executive Committee of Shri Agarwal Shiksha Samiti "confirmed" the service of the petitioner in writing. Thereafter the appointment was terminable, except when occasioned on disciplinary grounds on three months' notice, or salary in lieu thereof. The said appointment was thereafter extended from time to time till the office order dated 17.01.2014 whereunder it was to cease in all event on 31.03.2014. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Tribunal stating that the order dated 17.01.2014 was arbitrary, not based on any decision taken by the Managing Committee of the Agarwal Shiksha Prashikshan Mahavidhyalya and was in contravention of Sec. 18 of the Rajasthan Non -Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (hereinafter "the Act of 1989") as also Rule 39 of the Rajasthan Non -Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant -in -aid and Service conditions etc.) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter "the Rules of 1993").

(3.) In defence, the case of the respondent -non -applicant before the Tribunal was that the petitioner was at no point of time selected on the post of Principal by a duly constituted Selection Committee in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1989 and the Rule of 1993. She was merely a temporary appointee on the post of Principal on contract/fixed term which was extended from time to time. As the nature of appointment was not substantive, on the period for which the appointment was made lapsing, she was liable to automatic termination/discharge. Reference was made to the letter dated 20.12.2013 addressed by the petitioner herself to the Managing Committee, Agarwal Shiksha Prashikshan Mahavidhyalya stating that her period of appointment earlier extended by one year and expiring on 19.01.2014 be further extended and her salary also be increased. The respondents stated that Agarwal Shiksha Prashikshan Mahavidhyalya, Jaipur set up in the year 2007 was on provisional affiliation (by the University of Rajasthan) which was extended for a period of one year vide order dated 14.06.2012 inter alia on the condition that a qualified Principal in the College should be appointed by a duly constituted Selection Committee. It was stated that the petitioner with 52.88% marks in M.A. did not have the requisite minimum educational qualification of 55% marks at the Masters level at the time of her temporary appointment on the post of Principal nor was she in fact selected by a duly constituted Selection Committee. It was stated that the respondent -College had in consonance with the University of Rajasthan's letter dated 14.06.2012 invited applications for appointment of a Principal with requisite qualification under its advertisement dated 25.01.2014 published in various newspapers and the petitioner herself had applied therefor. It was further stated that in the context of the appointment of the petitioner being contractual/for a fixed term, it was not an appointment under the Act of 1989 or the Rules of 1993 and consequently the discharge/termination of the petitioner at the end of the fixed term of her employment could not attract the provisions of Sec. 18 of the Act of 1989 or Rule 39 of the Rules of 1993 -Nor be impugned for alleged contravention thereof.