IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11382 of 2005 1. THE NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA SAMITI, A-28, Kailash Colony, New Delhi through its Commissioner, previously Indira Gandhi Stadium I P Estate, New Delhi -2 2. The Deputy Director/Deputy Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Jaipur Region, A-13, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur -16 (Rajasthan) ….. Petitioners Versus 1. THE CENTRAL ADMINISTATIVE TRIBUNAL, Patna Bench at Patna through its Registrar 2. Kumar Vimal, Son of Sheopujan Singh, Resident of Chitrakut Nagar, PO & PS Digha, District Patna -800012 3. Union of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development Department of Education, Govt. of India, New Delhi ….. Respondents ----------- 07- 14.12.2009 Heard Mr. Jawahar Prasad Karn for the petitioners. None appears on behalf of respondent no.2 although he has entered appearance and filed duly executed Vakalatnama. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 5.1.2005, passed by the Central Administrative Tribual, Patna Bench, Patna, in OA No. 641 of 2002 (Kumar Vimal vs. Union of India & Ors.). 2. The basic facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition are not in dispute, and may be briefly indicated. The petitioner had appointed respondent no.2 herein as a Post-graduate teacher in History. The letter of appointment dated 15.9.97 is Annexure-3 hereof, paragraph -2 of which is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference:- “You will be on probation for a period of two years from the date of appointment extendable by another one year at the discretion of the competent authority. Failure to complete the period of probation to the satisfaction of the competent authority or found unsuitable for the post during probation period, will render you liable to discharge from service at any time without notice and without assigning any reasons thereto.” 3. The petitioner had joined as such on 24.10.97 at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Mohan Garh, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan. His period of probation covering a period of two years expired in October 1999, but he was not confirmed. The same was extended for a further period of six months, and again thereafter for another period of six 2 months. He was not confirmed in service and his probation was terminated by order dated 9.10.2001 (Annexure A), issued under the signature of the Deputy Director, and impugned before the Tribunal. The petitioner’s departmental appeal was rejected by order dated 28.5.2002 (Annexure 2B), leading to the Original Application before the Tribunal. The same has been allowed mainly on the ground that the Deputy Director is not the incompetent authority to pass the order impugned before the Tribunal. Hence this writ petition at the instance of the employer. 4. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners. It is evident on a perusal of the order of the learned Tribunal that the employer had stated in its written statement before the Tribunal that the Deputy Director is the competent authority to pass the order of termination of probation, but the contention did not find favour with the Tribunal. The writ petitioners have placed on record circular dated 20.8.2001 (Annexure 5), enclosing thereto the schedule of powers delegated to different authorities:- “Compendium of Circulars: Admn. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti POWERS DELEGATED TO Sl.no. …… …… Nature of items ……….. ……….. Director ………. ………. Joint Director(A) ……….. ……….. Dy.Director (R.O/Dy.(Director(A)Hdqrs. …………. ………….. 27 Appointments To make appointments to all posts in the Samiti corresponding in status to Group `A’ excluding Joint Director, IFA & CAO and GM© the recommendation of selection committee constituted for the purpose, subject to following R/Rules and general instructions of the Govt. of India, if any. To make appointments to all the posts of Vice-Principal & PGTs in Vidyalaya and all other posts corresponding to Group `B’ at the Headquarters office on the recommendations of Selection Committee constituted for the purpose subject to following the R/Rules and general instructions of the Govt. of India, if any. To make appointments to PGTs, OS and Gr.`C’ & `D’ posts for his Hqrs./Vidyalaya on the recommendations of Selection Committee constituted for the purpose, subject to following the R/Rules and general instructions of the Govt. of India, if any. 3 It is thus evident on a plain reading of the circular that the Deputy Director (Regional Office) and Deputy Director (A) Headquarters, are the competent authorities to appoint Post-graduate teachers. It is further evident on a plain reading of the order dated 9.10.2001 (Annexure 2 A) that the signatory of the letter was Deputy Director, Jaipur Region. We are thus convinced that the signatory of the order impugned before the Tribunal was the competent authority to appoint a person of the rank and level of respondent no.2 herein. Law is well settled that the appointing authority has all the powers to initiate departmental proceedings, confirm, or dismiss from service, terminate the probation, or impose minor and major penalty. We, therefore, disagree with the impugned order of the Tribunal. 5. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 5.1.2005, passed by the Tribunal, Patna Bench, in O A No.641 of 2002 is hereby set aside. Let it be emphasized that by order dated 29.3.2006, passed in this writ petition, operation of the impugned order was stayed. ( S K Katriar ) ( Kishore K Mandal ) mrl