ORDER Heard. 1. Initially the petitioner has filed this petition with regard to quashment of the order Annexure P-1 dated 25.5.2006, by which the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Librarian was extended for a period of one month. However, during the pendency of this petition, service of the petitioner has been terminated vide order dated 17.8.2006 Annexure P-1-A. Hence by way of amendment the petitioner has also challenged the aforesaid order. That amendment was allowed by this Court vide order dated 15.9.2006. 2.The petitioner has a qualification of Ph.D. in Library Science. Respondent No.2 is being managed by a Society, known as Samrat Ashok Technological Institute (Engineering College) Vidisha registered under the provisions of Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. The Institute respondent No.2 issued an advertisement in the newspaper dated 23rd November, 2004 "Dainik Bhaskar" with regard to selection and appointment for the post of Librarian. In pursuance to the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioner applied for the said post and he was permitted to appear in the interview, copy of the Call Letter dated 11.4.2005 which is filed as Annexure P-4. As per the petitioner he appeared in the interview which was held on 25.4.2005 and thereafter he was selected and appointed on the post of Librarian vide order dated 16.5.2005. It was mentioned in the order that the appointment of the petitioner would be on probation and as per the rules from the date fo joining. 3. The contention of the petitioner is this that after change of Government, the earlier Society had been dissolved in May 2005 and the Government nominated a Committee for management of the Institute and after change of the Committee the petitioner was not found fit for the post of Librarian and vide order dated 25.6.2006 his probation period was extended initially for a period of one month i.e. from 16.5.2006 to 15.6.2006 and subsequently for another period of one month 16.7.2006 to 15.8.2006 and thereafter finally vide order dated 17.8.2006 the services of the petitioner were terminated as unsatisfactory. 4. The respondents have filed the return and submitted that the service of the petitioner was unsatisfactory. A show cause notice was issued to him on 10.8.2006 with regard to irregularities. He did not submit any reply. 4. The respondents have filed the return and submitted that the service of the petitioner was unsatisfactory. A show cause notice was issued to him on 10.8.2006 with regard to irregularities. He did not submit any reply. It has further been submitted that the earlier Body appointed the petitioner illegally without following procedure and the petitioner cannot be appointed on probation for a period of one year as per the statutory rules named as Madhya Pradesh Technical Education Engineering College (Teaching Cadre) Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004, which came into force w.e.f. 5th March, 2004. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the termination order of the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner was entitled for confirmation after completing successfully probation period of one year and without holding any regular inquiry, service of the petitioner cannot be terminated. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on judgments reported in 2000 AIR SC 1706 [Chandra Prakash Shahi v. State of U.P. and others], 2000 AIR SC 1080 [V.P. Ahuja v. State of Punjab and others], (2000) 5 SCC 250 [Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and another v. S. Manjunath] and AIR 1984 SC 1110 [Indra Pal Gupta v. The Managing Committee, Model Inter College, Thora], 2006 AIR SCW 2952 [V.C., Banaras Hindu University and others v. Shrikant]. 6. Contrary to this learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was contrary to rules and the petitioner has no right to be continued in service and after judging over all performance of the petitioner the Institute passed the impugned order. Hence, it is as per law. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2006) 4 SCC 469 [Abhijit Gupta v. S.N.B. National Center, Basic Sciences and others], 2006 (2) BLJ 68 = (2006) 5 SCC 493 [National Fertilizers Ltd. and others v. Somvir Singh]. 7. From the facts stated above, it is clear that the earlier Society issued advertisement with regard to appointment and selection on the post of Librarian. In pursuance to the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioner appeared in interview and he was appointed vide order dated 16.6.2005. 7. From the facts stated above, it is clear that the earlier Society issued advertisement with regard to appointment and selection on the post of Librarian. In pursuance to the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioner appeared in interview and he was appointed vide order dated 16.6.2005. It is mentioned in the order that on the basis of recommendation of the Staff Selection Committee Meeting held on 25.4.2005 the petitioner was appointed on the post of Librarian on probation for a period of one year as per rules from the date of joining. It has further been mentioned in the order that the petitioner would be governed by the rules and regulations of the Institute. 8. The State Government in exercise of power under section 43 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 1973 framed statutory rules with regard to service conditions of Madhya Pradesh Technical Education Engineering College (Teaching Cadre) Service, the rules named as Madhya Pradesh Technical Education Engineering College (Teaching Cadre) Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004, hereinafter called the Rules 2004. Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules prescribes the procedure of recruitment and it is clear from the rule 10 (2) "Selection of candidates for the service shall be made by the Board or Governor by the process of written . examination and/or interview". In the present case, the petitioner was appointed by the Board after interview in accordance with advertisement. Hence, it cannot be said that the appointment of the petitioner was illegal. 9. With regard to service condition, the Rule 12 prescribes as under: "Conditions of service -- (1) Every person recruited on initial posts such as Lecturer, Programmer, Assistant Workshop Superintendent, Librarian and Physical Training Instructor shown in Schedule III shall be appointed initially for a period of three years on contract. On completion of this period, performance of the candidate shall be reviewed by the Appointing Authority as per approval procedure as approved by the Government and, if found suitable, he shall be offered a regular appointment." 10. From the aforesaid statutory rule, it is clear that initial appointment would be for a period of three years on contract basis and on completion of the aforesaid period performance of the candidate can be reviewed by the appropriate authority. From the aforesaid statutory rule, it is clear that initial appointment would be for a period of three years on contract basis and on completion of the aforesaid period performance of the candidate can be reviewed by the appropriate authority. Hence, in my opinion, the appointment of the petitioner Annexure P-7 has to be construed as per the statutory Rules of 2004 and it can be held that the petitioner was appointed for a period of three years on contract basis and thereafter his performance can be reviewed by the Institute. But in the present case the services of the petitioner were terminated only on the basis of adjudging his performance of a period of 14 months being unsatisfactory. In my opinion, it is contrary to law and illegal. It is well settled law that the terms and condition of the order has to be read in consonance with the statutory rules and in the appointment order of the petitioner, it has also been mentioned that he would be governed by rules and regulations of the Institute. 11. In this view of the matter, petition of the petitioner is disposed of with the following directions: (a) That the impugned order Annexure P-1-A dated 17.8.2006 is hereby quashed. It is directed that the petitioner would be deemed to be in service in accordance with rule 12 of the Rules of 2004. (b) Respondents are free to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the aforesaid rules. It is further made clear that the respondent Institute is free to take disciplinary action against the petitioner if it think proper with regard to any misconduct or some irregularity. (c) Petitioner would be entitled the service benefit and other regular benefits including salary if he was in continuous service, this Court stayed the order of termination of the petitioner on 12.6.2006. No order as to cost.