Order passed by the university held void.

Venugopal, J.- By letter dated 1st July, 1977, the appellant was appointed as Assistant Professor of Mathamatics in Ayya Nadar Janaki Ammal College, Sivakasi (hereinafter to be referred to as the College) the first respondent herein. By letter dated 19th June, 1978, the appellant was continued on probation in the same post for a period of two years from 5th July, 1978. On 2nd January, 1979 the appellant entered into a service agreement with the College. The agreement provided that, the appellant was employed as Assistant Professor, with effect from 5th July, 1978 and he shall be on probation for a period of not less than one year from the date of taking charge of his appointment, and if no order extending the period of probation was passed in writing within six months after the period of probation he shall be deemed to have completed his probation. After issuing some memos, and calling for explanation from the appellant, the College discharged the appellant from service with effect from 4th July, 1980. The appellant made a representation to the Madurai Kamaraj University, (hereinafter to be referred to as the University) the second respondent herein. The University, holding that the action of the College in discharging the appellant without the prior approval of the competent Authority is in violation of section 19 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred to as Act XXI of 1976) and ordered the reinstatement of the appellant in service with immediate effect. Against this order passed by the University, the College filed a writ petition, alleging that the post held by the appellant was only temporary, and the order of termination passed against the appellant is not punitive termination but merely termination of the services of a probationer for unsatisfactory work, and the provision of section 19 (1) of the Act was not attracted. The writ petition was resisted on the ground that the appellant was not a probationer at the time of the termination of his services and even in the case of probationers, prior approval of the competent authority for terminating their services was required under section 19 (1) of Act XIX of 1976, and as the order passed by the College was illegal and contrary to law, the University was justified in ordering reinstatement of the appellant. The learned judge of this Court held that section 19 will apply only to termination by way of disciplinary proceedings and so far as the termination of a probationer does not involve any disciplinary proceedings, there is no scope for applying section 19 (1) of Act XIX of 1976 and the order of reinstatement passed by the University was without jurisdiction and the order was quashed. Against this order of the learned Judge, the present writ appeal is filed.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant advanced the following contentions:

1. Under the rules framed under Act XIX of 1976, a private teacher appointed for a term exceeding three months should be taken on a permanent basis, and the appellant is, therefore, entitled to count his service from his first assumption of charge on 4th July, 1977 and he would be deemed to have completed his probation at the expiry of two years from that date viz., on 4th July, 1979, and since no order extending the period of probation was passed within six months after the expiry of the said probation, the appellant must be deemed to have completed his probation on 4th July, 1979.

2. As the initial appointment of the appellant on 4th January, 1977, was not temporary, the probation commenced from 4th January, 1977 and the order continuing the appellant on probation for two years from 5th July, 1978 is without jurisdiction, and contrary to rules, and by clause (2) of the agreement, probation was completed after the expiry of six months after the one year initial period of probation which commenced on 4th July, 1977. The order placing the appellant on probation for a period of two years f