Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.-Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner was appointed in the first instance by order dated 012.1991/31.01.1992 as a Lab Assistant by the respondent Gyan Jyoti Shiksha Samiti which is a recognised and aided education institution on a salary of Rs. 880-1680 Plus Dearness allowance. This appointment was to remain effective up to 30th April 1992. However, before the expiry of the term, by order dated 30th April, 1992 issued by the Administrator of the Institution, the petitioner was given a regular appointment for a period of one year in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2050 as Lab Assistant. Initially, the pay was fixed at Rs. 1200/-per month. 3. Thereafter, by order dated 30.01.1993, the petitioner was given one months notice for terminating his services w.e.f. 28.02.1993. This led to filing of this writ petition. On 25.02.1993, a show cause notice was issued and since the termination order had not became effective, an ad interim order was passed by this Court on 25.02.1993, directing that the services of the petitioner will not be terminated in pursuance of Annex. 4 dated 30.01.1993 till further orders. An application was moved in August, 1993 under Article 226(3) for vacating the interim order. However, the interim order was extended from time to time and it was ordered to be extended indefinitely for further period on 28th October, 1993 on finding that though the petitioner has been allowed to continue at the same time he has not been paid the remuneration for the work discharged by him and observed that before the application under Article 226(3) can be taken up for consideration, the respondents should discharge their obligation to pay remuneration for the entire period and it is only after making the payment, an application can be made for seeking orders on application under Article 226(3). In pursuance of that direction, no application has ever been made by the respondents for seeking further directions for vacating the interim order and accordingly the ad interim stay order dated 210.1993 continue to remain in force and the petitioner continue to remain in service. 4. It may be significant to notice here that in spite of the aforesaid direction though no application was made for vacating the interim order, the respondents have stopped making payment after a period which led to filing of two successive stay applications. 4. It may be significant to notice here that in spite of the aforesaid direction though no application was made for vacating the interim order, the respondents have stopped making payment after a period which led to filing of two successive stay applications. Firstly, second stay application for seeking further payment since last payment was made. That second stay application was dismissed on 22.07.1996 and the third stay application is still pending consideration. Apparently, directions for payment of the salary until the interim order is vacated was already continuing vide order dated 28th October, 1993 and no further directions were needed. 5. The petitioner has raised multiple grounds for challenging the impugned order Annex. 4 dated 30.01.1993 including mala fide on the part of the stop gap principle Shri Mahesh Kumar Sukheja that he has demanded 50% of his wages for the petitioner’s continuance in service during probation period and in case of denial he was warned of termination of his services on 211.1993 and no sooner the petitioner refused, on 30th Jan., 1993, the impugned notice was issued. 6. However, said Shri Sukheja has not been made party to the writ petition by name hence, it will not be possible to go into this allegation. However, on admitted facts emerging from the pleadings of the parties, the petition deserves to be allowed. 7. The petitioner has clearly stated that the power to appoint and power to remove vests in the Committee and not in the Principal which has issued the notice Annex. 4. While the respondents have admitted this position that power to appoint and remove vests only in the Management Committee as per the constitution of the College and since the Committee has been superseded by appointment of an Administrator, the Administrator alone can make an order for terminating the services. Apparently, the order Annex.4, neither says that it has been issued in terms of the directions of the Administrator nor it has been issued by the Administrator. 8. The respondents have tried to justify this order as having been made in pursuance of the directions issued by the Administrator and in furtherance of this Annex. R/3/1 has been placed on record which reads as under : “Ref . 8. The respondents have tried to justify this order as having been made in pursuance of the directions issued by the Administrator and in furtherance of this Annex. R/3/1 has been placed on record which reads as under : “Ref . No. thtslh@in LohÑfr@92&93@266 fnukad 6-2-1993 funskd ys dkWt f k{kk jktLFkku t;iqj A fo"k; % u; s in l`tu djus ds lEcU/k esa A egksn;] mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr ftu fo"k;kas esas vfrfjDr inksa dh vko;drk gS o"kZ 1992&93 dk dk;Hkkj fu/kkZfjr izkQekZ esa Hkstk tk jkgk gSoDrk tho foKku in ij ,d vfrfjDr in o ,d ouLifr aSSA izkkL=] in ,d vfrfjDr LohÑfr djus dk Je djsa A egkfo|ky; easjlk;u kkL=] tho foKku] ouLifr kkL= ,oa HkkSfrd kkL= pkj izk;ksfxd iz;ksxkkykvksa dk dk;Z Jh jfoUnz ukFk iz;k xkkyk, gS o"kZ 1980 ls bu iz;ksxkkyk lgk;d ns[krs vk dk; es jgs gSA o"kZ 1988 ls u;k ikB;Øe ds vuqlkj foKku laa ,d&,d d{kk de gksus ls dk;Z Hkkj a foKku lade gksus ls vc rd dk;Z py jgk FkkA o"kZ 1993&94 esdk; dh rhuksa d{kk gksus ls iz;ksk;kspk: :i ls pykus ds fy, ,oa vtesj foofo|ky; dh rjQ ls xkkyk ds izfxd dk;Z dks lqHkh ;g Li"V funsZk gS fd izsxkkyk ds fy, vyx&vyx iz;ksR;d iz;ksxkkyk lgk;d vko;d gS a izfxd dk;Z dks lqvr: vki egkfo|ky; esk;kspk: :i ls pykus ds fy, dqy pkj in (,d in iowZ esa LohÑr gS) NksM+dj rhu vfrfjDr in LohÑr djus dk Je djsaA l/kU;okn layXu % dk;Hkkj 1992&93 ZHkonh; ,l-Mh- Principal Gyan Jyoti (P.G.) College Sri Karanpur" 9. Obviously, this document contains admission that the petitioner was appointed on probation and his services were sought to be terminated by giving one months notice during probation period. However, the appointment on probation is not a fixed term or short term appointment, but is a regular appointment. A probationer can only be terminated on unsatisfactory service rendered during the period of probation else he is entitled to continue in service as confirmed employee. In this regard, the assertion of the petitioner in Para-7 are as under:- “That the petitioner discharged his duties efficiently, effectively and with dedication. The petitioner submits that there is no complaint regarding functioning of the petitioner. The respondents never pointed out any lacunae or any inefficient in working of the petitioner. In this regard, the assertion of the petitioner in Para-7 are as under:- “That the petitioner discharged his duties efficiently, effectively and with dedication. The petitioner submits that there is no complaint regarding functioning of the petitioner. The respondents never pointed out any lacunae or any inefficient in working of the petitioner. Despite of it, even before completion of the probation period, the respondent No. 3 passed an order dated 30th Jan., 1993 whereby it has been informed to the petitioner that his services shall be stand terminated w.e.f. 28.02.1993. 10. He has also stated in para 7 that on receiving this order, immediately he approached the Administrator but the Administrator has shown total ignorance regarding the fact about termination of the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 28.02.1993. In reply to para 7 on behalf of respondent No. 3, under whom the petitioner was working, viz. Principal, Gyan Jyoti Shiksha Samiti, the aforesaid facts were not disputed. The reason for the termination was stated to be because the post has not been sanctioned by the Government, as a result of which the College was not granted aid for the post. Moreover, the authenticity of document Ex. R/3/2 is also doubtful. The letter purported to be received from Administrator addressed to Shri M.K. Sukhija, Acting Principal Gyan Jyoti College, is originally with answering respondent. However, the order does not appear on official stationery of the Administrator but on a loose sheet of paper, which is quite unusual. Its genuineness has been denied by the petitioner in rejoinder. Yet no attempt has been made to place original letter from the record of the respondents. 11. Apparently, this contention cannot be accepted for terminating the services validly. The appointment having been entirely made on probation by the Administrator on regular selection only goes to show that the appointment was made in case the existing vacancy is not filled and on permanent basis and on abolition of post automatically service would not come to an end which is the reason stated in the reply. On the contrary, Annex. R/3/2 on the basis of which, order is sought to be supported refers to termination of service during probation without assigning any reason for terminating the services during probation. However, reference to such termination may be made to unsatisfactory service rendered during probation. On the contrary, Annex. R/3/2 on the basis of which, order is sought to be supported refers to termination of service during probation without assigning any reason for terminating the services during probation. However, reference to such termination may be made to unsatisfactory service rendered during probation. According to the respondents own admission, the conduct of the petitioner during probation was not unsatisfactory service which could have warrant terminating the services during probation. The may be noticed that respondent No. 3 is getting 100% grant-in-aid for all its expenses, therefore, whether for a particular post grant in aid is received or not cannot affect the validity of the appointment and the nexus which should exist between the appointment and termination which has not been shown to exist. 12. Consequently, the petitioner is allowed. The impugned order Annex. 4 dated 30th Jan., 1993 is quashed and the respondents are directed to make payment of all arrears of salary to the petitioner within a period of three months. 13. There shall be no order as to costs.