ORDER
1. Civil Revision Petition No. 3712 of 1992 is directed against the order dated 30-6-1992 passed by the Principal District Judge and Educational Appellate Tribunal, Shimoga, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 39 of 1991 dismissing the appeal as not maintainable. Civil Revision Petition No. 4062 of 1992 is directed against the order dated 25-9-1992 passed by the Principal District Judge and Educational Appellate Tribunal, Shimoga, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 18 of 1902 directing to reinstate the appellant and to allot the work load and to pay the unpaid salary from 14-7-1992 with other contributions and other allowances till the date of reinstatement.
2. The facts of these petitions in nut-shell are very simple. Mr. B.N. Krishna Murthy was working as a part-time lecturer since 1972. In the year 1991, he was dropped from the College. Being aggrieved by this he preferred EA No. 39 of 1992 which came to be dismissed. During 1991 the Society passed resolution in NEW 2789 of 1990-91 on 27-3-1991 to the effect this B.N. Krishna Murthy along with two others might be removed from the post on 1-4-1991. The same was communicated subsequently to him in the letter dated 30-3-1991. Against the said resolution and letter he filed M.A. No. 39 of 1991 which came to be dismissed. Again on 6-7-1992 he gave an application to the society requesting for allotment of work for the academic year 1992-93. No action was taken on the said letter. Hence he gave another letter to the President of the respondent-society on 11-7-1992. The President on the representation made an endorsement “Forwarded to the Principal for consultation with the N.E.S. Secretary and to do the needful”. Mr. Krishna Murthy received a registered reply on 14-7-1992 with the observation: “Your Appeal M.A. No. 39 of 1991 has been dismissed on the question of its maintainability. In the circumstances, my clients instruct me to say that any observation made in the said order cannot be considered. This is for your information”. Mr. Krishna Murthy did not get any allotment of work. He approached the Tribunal again stating that the failure to allot the work affected his service conditions. The learned District Judge allowed his appeal in part stating that the Management should reinstate him and also to allot the work and to pay the unpaid salary from 14-7-1992 with other contributions and other allowances till the date of reinstatement.
3. Being aggrieved by this order the Management has come up in Revision. Being aggrieved by the first order that is order passed in M.A. No. 39 of 1991 Mr. Krishna Murthy has preferred Revision Petition No. 3712 of 1992.
4. The short question that arises for my consideration is that whether any person appointed as a part-time lecturer in the Law College not
owned by the State can agitate that he should not be terminated from the service.
5. Of course from the year 1972 till 1991 the petitioner Krishna Murthy was working as a part-time lecturer. Of course no complaints were registered against him either for his conduct or against his teaching. Mr. Raghavendra Achar relied upon the decision in the case of C.E. Kalmady v Udupi Law College Trust, Udupi Law College, Udupi. In this decision it is held as follows:
“It is not disputed that he is a practising advocate and had been appointed as lecturer on a part-time allowance and was required as lecturer on a part-time allowance and was required to handle 5 periods in a week in the college. There was no right to hold the post or to any tenure. An appointment of this type is, under the general law of master and servant, terminable at reasonable notice on either side. A termination, even effected without such reasonable notice would only give rise to a cause of action to claim compensation in lieu of reasonable notice and does not give rise to a right for declaration that he continues to he in service or for reinstatement”.
6. As against this Mr. Gopal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a regular post and he has got substantive rights and principles of natural justice are not followed in removing him.
7. In this case also Mr. Krishna Murthy was working as a part-time lecturer. He does not show any order to show that he was working as a full time lecturer. He cannot submit this also because he is a practising lawyer. Since he is a practising Advocate at the best he is only entitled to take up the assignment only as a part-time lecturer. Once he is deemed to be working as a part-time lecturer, in view of the decision above cited, he cannot claim much less has got substantive right over the Management.
8. It is also pertinent to note that there was a Writ Appeal No. 2007 of 1983 against the order passed in Writ Petition No. 2249 of 1977. This Writ appeal confirmed the order passed in the Writ. Hence there is a
finality.
9. Mr. Raghavendra Achar also relied upon a decision in case of State of Punjab v Gurdarshan Singh Grewal. In this case it is held that when a person is taken on a contract basis as a part-time Administrator General and Official Trustee-cum-Treasurer Charitable Endowments, he is not a Government servant. The same analogy can be extended to the case on hand as Mr. Krishna Murthy was working only as a part-time lecturer. Hence he cannot be treated as a Government servant. It is also held in the case Termination of service — Practising Advocate appointed on contract basis as part-time Administrator General etc. — Is
not a Government servant — His termination from service is not violative of Article 311″.
10. In view of these decisions it goes without saying that Mr. Krishna Murthy neither has got any substantive rights nor is he entitled to be continued by the Management as a part-time lecturer as long as he insists to be continued.
11. According to Mr. Gopal, the principles of natural justice were not followed. According to him even when he was denied of the continuation of the service, at least he should have been given notice well in advance. This submission has got some force. At least the Management should have given him a notice well in advance that the Management was not intending to continue him in service for any change of circumstance. Since he was working from 1971 without any complaints, this ought to have been done. At the best it can be presumed that Mr. Krishna Murthy is affected by the unceremonious fare-well to him by this Management for which he has rendered his service for nearly 20 years. I think the ends of justice should be adequately met with, if this Krishna Murthy is compensated to the extent of Rs. 3,000/-.
12. With this observation, Revision Petition No. 4062 of 1992 is allowed and Revision Petition No. 3712 of 1992 is dismissed.