The order in each case stated that the services of the respondent companycerned are hereby terminated in accordance with the terms of his employment.
The appellate Court held that the respondents were number temporary employees, that they held the posts on probation, that on the expiry of three years period of probation they must be deemed to have been companyfirmed in their posts, that the impugned orders having deprived them of their right to those posts amounted to removal from service by way of punishment and were passed in violation of Art.
The companyrectness of these findings is number disputed by the appellants.
The orders dated February 10 and April 4, 1963, were passed without holding any departmental enquiry and without giving the respondents any opportunity of making representations against the action taken against them.
The respondents filed separate writ petitions in the Punjab High Court challenging the aforesaid orders on the ground that they had acquired substantive rights to their posts, and that the orders amounted to removal from service, and were passed in violation of Art.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 26, 1964 of the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
The respondents filed separate Letters Patent appeals against these judgments.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 7,1965 of the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
311 of the Constitution.
their services.
It is against these appellate orders that the present appeals have been filed after obtaining special leave.
By two separate orders passed on February 10, 1963 and April 4, 1963, the Director terminated.
354 of 1963 and Civil Appeal No.
Vikram Mahajan and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant in C.A. No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat, J. These two companynected appeals raise a companymon question of companystruction of r. 6 of the Punjab Educational Service Provincialised Cadre Class III Rules, 1961, Before October 1, 1957, Dharam Singh and Dev Raj, the respondents to these appeals, were junior teachers in District Board schools.
787 of 1966.
1017 of 1966.
162 of 1964.
The maximum period of probation fixed by the rules was three years which expired on October 1, 1960.
The District Board schools were provincialised, and the services of the respondents were taken over by the Punjab State with effect from October 1, 1957 in pursuance of a scheme of provincialisation of Local Bodies schools in the State.
787 of 1966 .
Under r. 7, the Director of Public Instruction, Punjab was the appointing authority.
311 and the Punjab Civil Services Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1952.
The appellants pleaded that the, respondents were temporary employees, that their services were terminated in accordance with the terms of their employment, and that the impugned orders did number amount to removal from service and were number in violation of Art.
N. Sachthey, for the appellant in C.A. No.
The respondents companytinued to hold their posts after October 1, 1960, but formal orders companyfirming them in their posts were number passed.
1017 of 1966 .
Mohan Behari Lal, for the respondent in both the appeals .
