D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.1048/2008 Shri Agrasen Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Hindaun City, District Karauli & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Non-Governmental Educational Institutional Tribunal, Jaipur & Ors. Date of Order :: July 28, 2008. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. S.C. Gupta for the appellant(s). Mr. Rajendra Soni, Mr Govind Gupta for the respondent no.2. *** This appeal seeks to challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 20.4.2008 by which the stay petition filed by the appellants alongwith their writ petition, has been rejected. The appellants, in the writ petition, challenged the judgment of the Rajasthan Non-Governmental Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur dated 1.3.2008 directing them to treat the respondent as confirmed Lecturer (History) upon expiry of the period of his probation and grant him regular pay in the scale of Rs.2200-4000. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the learned Single Judge erred in law in dismissing the stay petition because if during pendency of writ petition, the respondent is treated as confirmed, then nothing would remain to be decided in the writ petition. It was argued that the appellant do not intend to terminate the services of the respondent and, therefore, till writ petition remains pending, he could at best be directed to be continued in service on the same terms as before. It was argued that the name of the respondent was wrongly included in the list forwarded by the Principal of the School to the Government showing him as confirmed employee due to inadvertance. The Managing Committee has not approved his confirmation so far. -2- Shri Rajendra Soni, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal and argued that according to Rule 30 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Rules, 1993, the period for which an employee appointed on probation can be placed on probation in the first instance for one year which according to the proviso thereto, if the Managing Committee so considers fit, in any case, could be extended for further period of probation not exceeding one year. On facts, it is evident that the respondent was initially appointed on probation for a period of one year by order dated 4.7.2005 and the term of his probation was extended by three months by order dated 17.7.2006 and lastly by order dated 4.11.2006 his appointment on probation has been ordered to be continued till further orders. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge was justified in not staying the operation of the judgment of the tribunal particularly when the period of two years of probation which is the outer limit for continuation of an employee as such is only two years which period had already expired even before the judgment was delivered by the tribunal. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. It is however made clear that the observations made in this order should be treated to have been made in the limited context of deciding the present appeal and should not affect merits of the case either way, whenever the writ petition is taken up for consideration by the learned Single Judge. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J. (NARAYAN ROY),CJ. Skant/-