THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 11194 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner was appointed as Vice-Principal (Administration), by the Principal of the Hyderabad Public School, the 3rd respondent herein, through order dated 17.6.2005. He was also placed under probation, for a period of two years, in a continuous period of three years of service. The petitioner joined duty on 21.6.2005. Through order dated 3.9.2007, the 3rd respondent redesignated the petitioner as Registrar, in pursuance of a decision of the Board of Governors, the 2nd respondent herein, at its meeting held on 1.9.2007. The petitioner was issued an oﬃce order dated 6.5.2008, by the 3rd respondent. It is stated that, at its meeting held on 26.5.2007, the 2nd respondent had resolved to extend the period of probation of the petitioner, by one more year, and the same is communicated to him. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. He contends that he has successfully completed 2 years of probation, by 20.6.2007, and it was only on being satisﬁed about his performance, that the 2nd respondent has redesignated him as Registrar. It is also pleaded that the extension of his probation is contrary to Rule 9 of the Hyderabad Public Schools’ Service Rules (for short “the Rules”). The petitioner further contends that the appointing authority for the petitioner is the Principal, the 3rd respondent, and it was only for the latter, to have extended the probation, if at all permissible in law. On behalf of respondents, a counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled, together with supporting documents. It is stated that the decision to extend the probation of the petitioner was taken, before expiry of the initial period of probation of two years, and it is competent for the 2nd respondent, being the ultimate authority, to extend probation of the petitioner. It is also stated that no proceedings were issued to the petitioner, declaring that he had successfully completed his probation, and that no exception can be taken to the impugned order. Heard Sri K. Rajendran, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. Sumalini Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. The controversy in this writ petition is very narrow. There is no dispute as to the appointment of the petitioner as Vice-Principal, and his having been placed under probation, for a period of two years. Rule 9 of the Rules directs that an employee appointed by the Society, shall be on probation, for a period of two years, out of three continuous years of service. The rule is silent, as to whether it is competent for the appointing authority to extend the period of probation, beyond two years. That, however, is a matter, which does not warrant consideration for the present. Rule 13 of the Rules prescribes the appointing authority, for various posts. For the post of Principal, the 2nd respondent is the appointing authority, and for all other posts, the Principal i.e. the 3rd respondent herein, is the appointing authority. It is a matter of record that the petitioner was appointed by the 3rd respondent. The impugned order was passed by the Board of Governors i.e. the 2nd respondent. Though the 2nd respondent happens to be superior authority, it could not have extended the probation of the petitioner, bypassing the appointing authority i.e. the 3rd respondent herein. On this short ground, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ 30th July 2008 PAN