JUDGMENT :

RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

1. Heard Sri. Jitendra Singh, who has appeared in person and Sri. S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate and Assistant Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri. Raj Kumar Singh for the Union of India.

2. By means of this petition the petitioner has prayed following relief:

“(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order of competent authority dated 26.12.2019, contained as Annexure No. 1, to the present writ petition with all consequential benefits.

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the proposal letter dated 17.12.2019 referred in the order of competent authority, contained as Annexure No. 2, to the present writ petition with all consequential benefits.

(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the letter dated 09.01.2020 issued by under Secretary to the Government of India Ministry of Civil Aviation (opposite party no. 3), contained as Annexure No. 3, to the present writ petition with all consequential benefits.

(iv) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the advertisement for filing up the post Registrar of University in the month of 04.05.202 contained as Annexure No. 4, to the present writ petition, with all consequential benefits.”

3. The questions to be considered in this writ petition are:

(i) as to whether the services of the probationer during the probation period can be terminated by the order of simplicitor or by the punitive order?

(ii) what should be the nature of simplicitor order?

(iii) If only this much has been indicated by the employer that the services of the probationer were not satisfactory during the probation period, as to whether, in that case, the opportunity of hearing would be required or not?

(iv) If the services of the probationer is terminated leveling serious allegation against him/her as to whether, in that case, the opportunity of hearing should be provided to him/her or not?

(v) As to whether the order passed by the President of India as an ex-officio visitor of the University can be interfered with by the writ Court or not?

4. So as to appreciate the aforesaid questions of law, ignoring the exhaustive facts of the issue in question, some relevant facts which are directly touching the issue are being considered.

5. The petitioner applied for the post of Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University (hereinafter referred to as University in short) on 14.8.2018. The petitioner was interviewed by the competent authority on 23.10.2018. On the basis of satisfactory interview the offer of appointment was issued to the petitioner on 1.3.2019 and the petitioner submitted his joining on the post of Registrar of the University on 8.4.2019. The petitioner has informed that since he had submitted his joining on the post of Registrar of the University on 8.4.2019 so that period would be expiring on 8.4.2022.

6. As per the offer of appointment dated 1.3.2019 such appointment of the petitioner was on contract basis for the period of three years as per Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University Act No. 26 of 2013 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 2013 in short). Further, as per aforesaid offer of appointment the probation period was of one year from the date of appointment subject to further extension at the discretion of competent authority as per prevailing rules. However, the services of the petitioner might have been terminated during the period of probation by giving one months notice or by making payment of one months salary in lieu thereof.

7. Appointment, terms and condition of service of employees of the Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University Fursatganj Raebareilly now District Amethi (hereinafter referred to as University) governed by the Act, 2013 and Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University first Statutes. 2016 (hereinafter referred as to First Statutes).

8. Section 2 (y) of the Act. 2013 provides that “University” means the Natio