(1) THIS is not a fit case which calls for our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. The High court has recorded a clear finding that the respondent was appointed on probation for a period of one year and not temporarily as claimed by the management. Though the Inspector granted approval for the appointment of the respondent on probation for a period of one year, the management did not even give the respondent a letter of appointment mentioning this fact. We think that the conduct of the Management Committee has throughout been such as to disentitle them from invoking discretionary jurisdiction. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.