The order of appointment provided that the appointee will be on probation for a period of one year and that he will be required to enter into an agreement with the school.
It appears that the term of the earlier Managing Committee expired and a new Managing Committee took over with effect from March 24,1982.
227 of the Constitution.
The appellant accepted the appointment order and joined service.
2 of Sec.
In Re W. P. No.
The petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner without success.
After an unsuccessful appeal to the Commissioner, the appellant approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh under Art.
As required by the regulations of the Education Department of Chandigarh Administration, his appointment was subject to companyfirmation by the Director of Public Instruction.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.2.83 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ No.1086/83.
In token of the appreciation of the outstanding performance of the appellant as Headmaster in the field of academic work company curricular activities and administration during the session 1980 81, he was awarded a certificate of honour by the Finance and Education Secretary, Union Territory of Chandigarh, on August 10, 1981.
The High Court rejected the writ petition in limine but by a speaking order observing that as the school cannot be said to be other authority under Art.
On January 31,1983, the Education Managing Committee of the school informed the appellant that his services were numberlonger required with effect from that very day i.e. January 1983 and in terms of Condition No.
Admittedly, the school receives 95 of its expenses as grant from the Government and for companytribution 5 of the expenses claims thoroughly arbitrary powers to be presently pointed out which appears to be anachronistic.
12 of the Constitution, it was number amenable to the writ , jurisdiction of the High Court.
The appellants application for relief to the Deputy Commissioner under sub sec.
11238 of 1983 Under Article 32 of the Constitution G. Bhagat, Additional Solicitor General and Vimal Dave for the appellant in CA.
The petitioner was informed by a letter dated February 28, 1983 that as per the resolution adopted by the Managing Committee of the school, it was resolved to terminate the service of the petitioner as numberlonger required with effect from the fore noon of March 4, 1983 in terms of first part of clause 6 of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the Management.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
WITH Writ Petition No.
The appointee had to enter into an agreement with the management of the school.
iii of the agreement entered into by him, he would cease to be in the employment of the school and was directed to hand over charge to Mrs. Gurcharan Kaur.
The appointment order spells out some of the companyditions of appointment, one of them may be numbericed.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
The companyfirmation was granted as per the order dated August 11, 1976.
Thereupon he filed present petition under Art.
He was interviewed on March 28, 1976 and on the same day by the order of the same date, he was offered the post of Headmaster in the school in the prescribed scale with usual allowances sanctioned by the Education Department, Chandi garh Administration for grant in aid Schools.
G. Bhagat, Additional Solicitor General and Ms. Asha Rani Jain for the petitioner in WP.
2137 of 1984.
In Re C.A. No.
2137/84.
This appointment was made upon an application made by the petitioner and after he was interviewed by the companycerned companymittee of the school.
By the resolution of the Managing Committee of the School dated June 2, 1977, the appellant was companyfirmed with effect from May 1, 1977 in post as the Headmaster.
Prithvi Raj and R.C. Pathak for the respondents.
2137/84 Pursuant to an advertisement inviting application for the post of Headmaster of the School, appellant Shri Manmohan Singh Jaitla applied for the same.
N o. 11238/83.
The action of the Managing Committee of the school in dispensing with the services of both the aforementioned persons is questioned in these two matters on more or less identical grounds and therefore they were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J. Guru Nanak Khalsa High School School for short an aided school and hence governed by The Punjab Aided Schools Security of Service Act, 1969 1969 Act for short in its application to the Union territory of Chandigarh dispensed with the service of the Headmaster of the School, appellant Shri Manmohan Singh Jaitla, and the drawing teacher Amir Singh claiming to exercise power under an agreement executed by each of them with the management of the school.
11238/83 Petitioner Amir Singh was appointed by the Managing Committee of the School on March 21, 1976 as a Drawing Teacher as per the appointment order No.1265 dated March 21, 1976.
