The main legal point established is that the Administrator's power to alter service conditions is limited by the Haryana Private Colleges (Taking over of Management) Act, 1978, and any termination in violation of this provision is without jurisdiction.

JAISHREE THAKUR J. –

1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing termination order dated 29.10.2011 (Annexure P-6) and further for quashing judgment dated 31.03.2016 (Annexure P-10), whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed along with a prayer to reinstate the petitioner herein with all consequential benefits and to quash order dated 31.03.2009 (Annexure P-11).

2. In brief, the facts as stated are that the petitioner had degrees in M.Sc (Computer Science) and M.Tech (Computer Science). The petitioner passed his M.Phil. in the year 2007 and the result was declared on 24.12.2008. The respondent-Matu Ram Institute of Management advertised a post of Lecturer in Computer Science for BCA programme. The petitioner being qualified applied for the said post and appeared before the Selection Committee, which offered an appointment to the petitioner vide letter dated 17.07.2010. Respondent No.3-Matu Ram Institute of Management was run by Jat Education Society, Rohtak and when the term of the Managing Committee of the said Society was over, an Administrator was appointed by the Government. The Administrator issued show cause notice to the petitioner vide letter dated 26.04.2011, as to why his services be not terminated, to which the petitioner submitted a reply. However, services of the petitioner came to be dispensed with vide order dated 10.05.2011 by the Administrator.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CWP No.8647 of 2011 before this Court seeking to challenge the order of the Administrator being without any jurisdiction. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 19.09.2011 and the petitioner was directed to file an appropriate appeal before the Educational Tribunal. While disposing of the said petition, status quo qua the service of the petitioner was ordered to be maintained to enable the petitioner to file an appeal. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Educational Tribunal and the status quo as ordered by the Court was extended from time to time. However, on account of non-availability of the counsel for the petitioner, the status quo was not extended and the services of the petitioner were again terminated vide order dated 29.10.2011 Annexure P-6 by respondent No.3. The appeal was subsequently amended to challenge the order dated 29.10.2011, which was dismissed and by way of an order passed in Civil Revision No.3288 of 2015, the petitioner was permitted to file an amended appeal, which appeal finally stood dismissed vide order dated 31.03.2016 Annexure P-10. Hence, the instant writ petition.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the order of termination on the ground that the Administrator had no power to terminate the services of the petitioner as the power of the Administrator had been given under Haryana Private Colleges (Taking over of Management) Act, 1978 and in terms of Section 3 of the said Act, the Administrator had no power to alter the service conditions of the employees of the College. It is further argued that the termination of the services of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not qualified for the post, is per se illegal. The petitioner has passed his M.Phil. on 14.12.2008 and UGC had issued a notification, which has found reference in the Government of Haryana’s letter dated 04.10.2006 (Annexure P-8) that all candidates, having M.Phil. degree in the subject concerned, are exempted from NET, whereas the Administrator relied upon a letter dated 31.03.2009 (Annexure P-11), which stated that letter dated 04.10.2006 stood withdrawn. The letter dated 04.10.2006 is in fact a letter issued wherein it had initially been stated that candidates having Ph.D degree in the concerned subject is exempted from NET for PG level and UG level teaching. It is contended that none of the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the pe