Judgment:
ORDER
Kedambady Jagannatha Shetty, J.
1. These two Revision Petitions are directed against the common order passed on 15-1-1990 in M.A.Nos.1 of 1988 and 2 of 1988 by the Educational Appellate Tribunal and District Judge, Raichur, dismissing the appeals of the petitioners.
2. Since both the Revision Petitions are filed against a common order passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal and District Judge, Raichur, and common question of law and facts are involved, they are disposed of by a common order.
3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner, Basavaraj Patil in C.R.P.No.2342 of 1990 is an appellant in M.A.No.1 of 1988 and the petitioner, Sidramareddy in C.R.P. No.2341/1990 is an appellant in M,A.No.2 of 1988 before the Educational Appellate Tribunal and District Judge, Raichur. Respondent is common in both the Revision Petitions.
4. The petitioner Mr.Basavaraj Patil in C.R.P.No. 2342 of 1990 was appointed as F.D.C. in the Engineering College at Raichur run by the respondent, by its Order No.HKES/A8/EST/56/85-86, dated 14-11-1985 on the pay scale of Rs.630/- to Rs.1,200/-. The order of appointment contained the service conditions as per the respondent's Service Manual 1978. The petitioner joined service and has been rendering service in the institution.
5. The petitioner Mr.Sidramareddy in C.R.P.No. 2341 of 1990 was appointed as S.D.C. in the aforesaid College by the abovesaid order on the pay scale of Rs.490/- to Rs.950/-. The appointment order contained the service conditions as per the respondent's Service Manual 1978. The petitioner joined service and has been rendering service in the institution.
6. Both the petitioners were required to undergo probationary period as per Probationary Rules in Chapter III of the Service Manual which are made applicable to the employees. By the order of the respondent-Management, dated 18-5-1987 the services of the petitioners during the probationary period are declared as successfully completed, viz., Basavaraj Patit on 22-11-1986 and Sidramareddy on 15-1-1987. Thus, the respondent-Institution declared the successful completion of probationary period of both the petitioners, by its order, dated 18-5-1987. As per Rule 12 of the Service Manual when once the probation is declared as successfully completed, the respondent-Management cannot dispense with the service. But, the respondent, all of a sudden dispensed with the service of the petitioners with immediate effect by its order, dated 20-4-1988. This order has been challenged by the petitioners by filing an appeal before the Educational Appellate Tribunal. The case of the petitioners is that under Rule 12 of the Service Manual, the respondent has no jurisdiction to dispense with the service after the probationary period being declared as successfully completed. The impugned order was not preceded by a notice as contemplated under Rule 13 of the Service Manual. The order also cannot be construed as an order of retrenchment because of the reasons that according to the staff pattern of the Engineering College, Raichur, there are 15 S.D.C. posts and as per Rule 18 an employee appointed, if for any reasons cannot be continued for want of vacancy to the category of the post to which he is appointed, the retrenchment shall be made taking the seniority into consideration in such category of posts shall be retrenched from service on the principle of 'last come first go'. It is the further case of the petitioners that no reasons are assigned in the impugned order. The petitioners were not given any opportunity and as such there is violation of principles of natural justice. When the petitioners have successfully completed the probationary period, the respondent-Management has no authority nor justified in removing them from service. The impugned order, on the face of, awarding a major penalty and as per the procedure laid down under Rule 14 no order imposing any major penalty shall be passed except in accordance with the essential elements of the procedure prescribed by the Government of Karnataka to regulate the adjudication of the major penalties, it is their further case, before the Appellate Authority, that the impugned orders are arbitrary and mala fide and it is not in accordance with Section 6 of the Act.
7. The respondent has resisted the case of the petitioners and filed objection statement denying all the allegations contained in the appeals filed by the petitioners and submitted that the petitioners -B.P. Basavaraju was appointed as F.D.C. and Sidramareddy was appointed as S.D.C. temporarily. In the order of appointment, it has been stated that the services are on temporary basis and terminable at any time without any basis. The provisions of Rule 9 of the Service Manual are not applicable to the petitioners. So, the question of declaration of successful completion of probation period in case of the petitioners does not arise at all. The order has been passed by the respondent stating that the petitioners have successfully completed the probationary period, due to the misrepresentation made by the petitioners, which is not in accordance with the Service Manual and is void ab initio. Rule 12 of the Service Manual is also not applicable to the case of the petitioners. No appeal will lie. Further, the impugned order does not come under the purview of Section 6 of the Act as it does not amount to passing of stigma on the petitioners nor it is a case of penalty. The order of dispensation of service is in accordance with the terms of the appointment order given to the petitioners.
8. On the basis of the respective contentions of the parties, the Appellate Authority has formulated the following issues for consideration:-
1. Whether the impugned order falls under the purview of Section 6 of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975?
2. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal?
3. Whether the impugned order of dismissal is illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice?
4. Whether the appellant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?
5. What order?
9. After considering the respective contentions of the parties and the material on record, the Appellate Authority has held issues Nos. 1 to 4 in the negative. It has held; 'that since the appointments of the appellants to the respective posts is temporary one as per the conditions mentioned in their letter of appointment, termination of their service is a termination simpliciter. The termination of the appellants thus does not fall under Section 6 of the Act... The termination of the service of the appellants thus being a termination simpliciter in accordance with the rights pf the respondents under the letter of appointment, no appeal is maintainable before this Tribunal under Section 8 of the Act.... and it cannot be said that the impugned order is illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice.' The appeals are dismissed. Hence, the Revision Petitions by the petitioners.
10. Mr. Basava Prabhu Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioners urged that the Tribunal has committed an error in acting with material irregularity in dismissing the appeals of the petitioners, on the mistaken notion that the order impugned does not fall within the purview of Section 6 of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975. Since the petitioners are permanent employees the Tribunal ought to have held, that the order of termination has been passed by way of punishment, which amounts to, in fact, dismissal which is in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioners had, in fact, at the time of termination of their services became permanent employees in accordance with Rule 12 of the Service Manual, and as such, the Tribunal ought to have held that the order of termination of services of the petitioners, were passed as a measure of penalty.
11. Mr. Raikote, learned Counsel for the respondent, has controverted the submissions of the petitioner's Counsel and argued that the Appellate Authority on proper consideration of the material on record has rightly come to the conclusion that the order of termination was in accordance with the terms and conditions of appointment given to the petitioners. The termination of services of the petitioners is termination simpliciter which is neither illegal nor it is in violation of principles of natural justice.
12. Let me consider the conflicting contentions of the parties.
13. There is no dispute that the services of the petitioners is governed by the Hyderabad Karnataka Education Society's Institutions' Service Manual (hereinafter referred to as the 'Service Manual'). The respondent-Society after coming into existence framed Rules and Regulations. As per Rule 17(11), the Governing Council of the Society has been vested with the power to appoint and terminate and give promotions to its employees. The respondent-Society framed H.K.E. Society's Institutions' Service Manual, 1978. Chapter XIX of the Service Manual deals with Cadre and Recruitment Rules.
14. It is an undisputed fact that the respondent-Society by its order of appointment dated 14-11-1985, appointed petitioners Basavaraj Patil as First Division Clerk and Sidramareddy as Second Division Clerk, which reads as follows:-
'PROCEEDINGS OF THE PRESIDENT H.K.E. SOCIETY
GULBARGA.
Sub, Engineering College Raichur - Appointment of Teaching and Non-Teaching staff.
PREAMBLE;-The Principal, Engineering College, Raichur, has submitted a list of the candidates (Teaching and Non-Teaching) selected by the Governing Council of the H.K.E. Society Gulbarga, in its meeting held on 20th and 21st August 1985, held at the Engineering College, Raichur for the appointments in Engineering College, Raichur. It is considered acceptable. Hence the following order is issued.