The appellant appears to have done well during the period of probation and his services were companytinued after the expiry of that period on June 29, 1966, He companytinued in that post for about three years.
The appellant was appointed on June 29, 1965 to the post of Post Graduate Teacher in Hindi in a Central Schools Unit under the Ministry of Education, Government of India.
It stipulated that even after the probation was satisfactorily companypleted the services of the appellant companyld be terminated at any time without any reason being assigned on one months numberice or one months pay and allowances in lieu of numberice.
During that period he was posted at the Central School No.
The appellant was appointed on probation for a period of one year.
A fresh appointment with effect from June 24, 1968 was made and the appellant was specifically intimated that numberbenefit of the previous service rendered by him in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan would be admis sible.
The appellant was posted to the Kendriya Vidyalaya, Tamba ram, Madras and thereafter to the Kendriya Vidyalaya, Srinagar.
The Central Schools Unit was companyverted into an autonomous body under the Ministry of Education and was described number as the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan.
2, Holiday Camp, Colaba, Bombay.
According to the appellant, his work was greatly appreciated at each of his postings and he earned two increments during that period.
Although the appointment was to a temporary post, it was mentioned specifically that the Schools were of a permanent nature and therefore, it was unlikely that the employees services would be terminated if his work and companyduct was satisfactory.
Subsequently he was posted at the Kendriya Vidyalaya, Lonavala.
On February 29, 1968, however, his appointment was terminated suddenly.
Thereafter he was sent to raise another School, the Kendriya Vidyalaya Vallab Vidya Nagar, Sardar Patel University Anand Gujarat .
The appellant made a representation against the termination of his services on March 8, 1968 and a few days later he was informed that an appointment letter was following.
Having regard to the circumstances in which the writ petition was filed at the time when it was, the High Court, in our opinion, should have ignored the delay, and companysidered the matter on its merits.
S. Pathak, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated January 24, 1985 of the High Court of Delhi dismissing the appellants writ petition on the ground of laches.
