going into the question as to whether the respondent-Academy was a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India or not, declined to interfere with the decision dated 24.01.1992, rendered in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.69/ 1991, sustaining the adjudication in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1185/ 1990, treating the appellant/ writ-petitioner to be on probation as on 08.01.1985. In view of the consistent determination of all these forums on the above aspects, we do not find any weighty or persuasive reason to sustain the plea of the appellant/ writ-petitioner based on his claim of confirmation in service vide order dated 25.01.1990. To entertain the same at this stage in the instant appeal, would be to adopt a course incompatible with the concluded adjudication to the contrary involving the same parties. The appellant/ writ-petitioner's challenge to the order dated 31.03.1992 terminating the services of a confirmed incumbent without any prior notice or opportunity, thus, does not weigh with us. If he is construed to be a probationer as on 31.03.1992, the challenge to the order of the even date terminating his service on and from 08.01.1985, as done, cannot also be sustained. As it is, the appellant/ writ-petitioner adjudged to be a probationer, has no right to continue/ to hold on to the post indefinitely. Noticeably, the respondent-Academy has questioned the validity of the order dated 02.01.1990, to be in violation of its Memorandum of Association requiring the approval of the State Government for appointment to the post of Director. This order, to reiterate, has been signed by Mr. Damodar Das Acharya, President, Rajasthan Hindi Grarnth Academy and Education Minister, Rajasthan. Clause 8 of the Memorandum of Association of the
