JUDGMENT 1. - The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 24.12.1980 and 22.1.81 by which the order of reinstatement of the petitioner dated 13.3.78 was withdrawn. Further prayer has been made that the termination of services of the petitioner vide order dated 24.5.72 may also be declared illegal. 2. The petitioner was appointed on probation for a period of one year vide order dated 1.7.70 as Lecturer in Zoology. This period of one year was further extended upto 26.6.72. Vide letter dated 24.5.72 it was informed to the petitioner that in view of the unsatisfactory conduct the services of the petitioner shall stand terminated w.e.f. 1.7.1972. By telegram dated 19.6.72 also the petitioner was informed that his probationary period expired on 30.6.1972 and the executive does not requires services thereafter. The petitioner has filed a suit against the order of termination and also prayed for temporary injunction in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate (East) Jaipur City which was dismissed on 19.5.73. In the meantime the application for temporary injunction was also rejected against which the appeal was filed which was dismissed on 12.8.72. The petitioner made representation in the State Government. The State Government appointed a committee of Sri Kakkar and it is stated that the said report is not in favour of the petitioner. Another representation was made to the Commissioner of Education. In the meantime, the Director of Education on the basis of the report of the Committee directed the reinstatement of the petitioner. Against this order Writ Petition No. 1001/1979 was filed y the management. The order dated 13.3.78 was withdrawn by the Government vide order dated 24.12.1980 and 22.1.1981. The petitioner has now challenged this order of withdrawal on the grounds (i) that the petitioner was not given any notice, (ii) that there is no power with the State Government to withdraw the order by reviewing its earlier order, and (iii) that the authority which has passed the order alone can review its order and not a lower authority. 3. So far as the question of termination of services is concerned, it may be observed that the petitioner had filed a suit and the remedy was availed of. 3. So far as the question of termination of services is concerned, it may be observed that the petitioner had filed a suit and the remedy was availed of. If the injunction was not granted and thereafter the appeal has also not been accepted, it does not give any right to the petitioner the approach this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The power under Art. 226 cannot be invoked in a routine manner and at the wishes of the petitioner who has been unsuccessful in another remedy. In my opinion the writ petition cannot he entertained when the remedy of suit has already been availed and injunction application was moved by the petitioner and after dismissal of the said application even the appeal was not accepted. It does not give right to the petitioner on approach this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India after availing the remedy in the civil courts. 4. It may be observed that the services of the petitioner were on probation and if during the probation period it is found that he has not given satisfactory services, then he does not acquire any right for continuance in the service. In the present case it is not only the unsatisfactory services which have been found but there is an allegation of had record of service in the past on which I need not observe anything. 5. Coming to the point of withdrawal of the order and that the said order has been sent under the signatures of Asst. Accounts Officer/Accounts Officer it can he said that he signed the order on the basis of the orders issued by the Government and therefore it cannot be said that a subordinate authority has passed the order. The communication of the order by the subordinate authority does not mean that the order has been passed by the said authority. The first line of the order says that it is on the direction of the State Government and therefore the order has been passed by the State Government. The order dated 13.3.78 has not been made a part of the writ petition and it was shown to me separately. The said order was passed by the Education Commissioner in which the order dated 5.7.76 was cancelled and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated. 6. The order dated 13.3.78 has not been made a part of the writ petition and it was shown to me separately. The said order was passed by the Education Commissioner in which the order dated 5.7.76 was cancelled and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated. 6. None has cared to appear on behalf of the State. It is very sorry state of affairs that no proper arrangements are made to represent the State when the cases are taken up by this court. A copy of this order may be sent to the Chief Secretary who will look into the matter and ensure that the cases on behalf of the State are represented property. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while withdrawing the order dated 13.3.1978 the petitioner was not given opportunity of being heard nor the power of review vests in the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that in this case there was no appeal filed and it was only a representation made to the Education Commissioner and it could not be considered that any order was passed by the Director of Education in accordance with the Rules for payment of granting aid to non-government Educational Cultural & Physical Education Institutions in Rajasthan, 1963. Under rule 4(g) of the said Rules it is provided that an appeal shall lie to the authority mentioned in Appendix V from every order of the Governing Body/Council or the Managing Committee imposing punishment referred to in clause (e) above. Under rule 4(g) of the said Rules it is provided that an appeal shall lie to the authority mentioned in Appendix V from every order of the Governing Body/Council or the Managing Committee imposing punishment referred to in clause (e) above. Clause (e) says that no person on the staff of the institution shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him provided that this clause shall not apply to (i) where a person is dismissed or remove or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which led to his conviction on criminal charge, or (ii) where it is not practicable to give that person an opportunity of showing cause and the Department's consent has been obtained before the action is taken according to which it was Director of Education to whom appeal could be filed and apparently no appeal was filed to the Director of Education as contemplated under the Rules and it was on the basis of the representation to the Education Commissioner and the report of the Kakkar Committee that the order was passed and when the writ petition was filed by the employer, respondent No. 4, the State Government has withdrawn its order which was without jurisdiction. It was observed that if an order has been passed which is without jurisdiction the question of even withdrawal of the said order does not arise as it cannot be enforced and is nullity in law. The Education Commissioner, who has passed the order on 13.3.78, has not been pointed to be an authority under Appendix 5 of the Rules of 1963. It cannot be considered that the order of withdrawal is without jurisdiction and no provision exists. What has been done by the communication dated 24.12.1980 and 22.1.1981 is that the illegality which was committed has been set at rest and the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved by the said order. As mentioned above, the order of termination has already been held to proper and once the said order is considered to be proper and legal further exercise in the matter is of no consequence. In respect of the order which was communicated the petitioner availed the remedy available to him. As mentioned above, the order of termination has already been held to proper and once the said order is considered to be proper and legal further exercise in the matter is of no consequence. In respect of the order which was communicated the petitioner availed the remedy available to him. Withdrawal of the suit does not authorise him to file the writ petition. The services of the petitioner were on probation and the probation period was extended by three months, and during that time the work of the petitioner was not found satisfactory. The respondents were within their right to terminate the services. It may also be observed that the order of the State Government which was challenged by the Management was stayed even in this Court. The reply which has been given in the said writ petition, even if certain points have been said in favour of the petitioner therein, it cannot give any benefit because ultimately there was no adjudication and it was only after that the State Government considered that it has committed an illegality, and the order was without jurisdiction, it has withdrawn its earlier order. In these circumstances, I do not consider that any case is made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.Writ petition dismissed. *******