1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER Nav Shikhsha Samaj Vs. Dr.Mahaveer Prasad & Ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6241/2008 Date of Order : : 07/11/2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr.Kuldeep Mathur, for the petitioner. Mr.R.K.Rathi, for the respondent No.1. BY THE COURT: By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the judgment Annexure-7 dated 19th February, 2008 passed by the respondent No.2, the Rajasthan Non Government Educational Institution Tribunal, Jaipur (for short “the Tribunal” hereinafter). Briefly stated facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of this writ petition are that the 2 petitioner Nav Shikhsha Samaj is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and a non Government Educational Institution. The respondent No.1 was initially appointed by the petitioner on the post of Lecturer in Chemistry in the pay scale of Rs.6500/-10500/- for a period of six months w.e.f. 27th July, 1999. By order dated 1st February, 2000, the services of the respondent No.1 was extended for further one year on probation and thereafter, his services came to be confirmed upon completion of probation period on the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/- w.e.f. 1.2.2001 vide order dated 13th April, 2001. However, abruptly, by order dated 30th June, 2002, the services of the respondent No.1 came to be terminated without affording any opportunity of hearing. The respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the respondent- Tribunal being Appeal No.188/2002. The respondent-Tribunal by judgment Annexure-7 dated 19th February, 2008 allowed the appeal of the respondent No.1 and held that the order dated 30th June, 2002 terminating the services of the respondent No.1, appellant therein, is illegal and against the law and therefore, set aside the order of termination and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent No.1 in service with all consequential benefits. Hence, this writ petition. 3 The service upon the respondent No.2 has been dispensed with. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent No.1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the material available on record more particularly the judgment impugned Anneuxre-7 dated 19th February, 2008. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that though the respondent No.1 was initially appointed for a period of six months but subsequently, his services came to be confirmed by order dated 13th April, 2001 but one Smt.Salaj Mathur who was working on the post of Lecturer in Chemistry, was terminated from services and she filed an appeal against the order of termination before the Tribunal being Appeal No.448/1998, which was allowed vide order dated 16th April 2001 and in pursuance thereto, the petitioner Institution was under obligation to allow one Smt.Salaj Mathur to reinstate her in service and therefore, there being only one sanctioned post, the petitioner-Institution had no option except to terminate the services of the respondent No.1. So far as the case of Smt.Salaj Mathur is concerned, the judgment rendered in her favour by the 4 Tribunal Anneuxre-3 dated 16th April, 2001 said to have been challenged in a writ petition filed by the petitioner and that writ petition came to be dismissed. Even otherwise, the appointment/reinstatement of Smt.Salaj Mathur is not in question to be examined in this writ petition. What is to be examined in this writ petition is as to whether the services of the respondent No.1 is validly terminated or not. The respondent Tribunal after taking every piece of material available on record held that the services of the respondent No.1 came to be terminated without any reason as also without affording any opportunity of hearing. It is not the case of the petitioner-Institution that the appointment of the respondent No.1 dehors the rules. The respondent No.1 is appointed in accordance with the rules applicable for such appointment by the petitioner-Institution and there being no charge adverse to his service record while he was in service, abruptly terminated his services without any reason and therefore, the Tribunal by the impugned judgment has rightly set aside the order dated 30th June, 2002 terminating the services of the respondent No.1. Therefore, in my view, no fault can be found in the judgment of the Tribunal nor it sufferes from any error or illegality warranting interference in extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution 5 of India and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed . There shall be no order as to costs. Ad interim stay order dated 16.10.2008 is vacated. (H.R.PANWAR), J. NK 6 S.B.CIVIL MISC.STAY APPLICATION NO.10997/2008 IN S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6241/2008 Date of Order : : 07/11/2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr.Kuldeep Mathur, for the petitioner. Mr.R.K.Rathi, for the respondent No.1. Since the writ petition itself has been dismissed, ad interim stay order dated 16.10.2008 is vacated and the stay petition stands dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. NK