The Division Bench interpreted the Rule and placed reliance on a three Judge Bench Decision of this Court in The High Court of Madhya Pradesh through Registrar and Others v. Satya Narayan Jhaver1 and came to hold as follows In terms of Rule 4.9 of the Rules, the maximum period of probation would be only three years and the rule does number provide any further extension of probation.
The first respondent herein was appointed on the post of a Mistress with effect from 01.09.1993.
Questioning the legal acceptability of the Judgment and Order dated 26.03.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A. No.
In essence, the proponement was that she was deemed to have been a companyfirmed employee of the school and hence, it was obligatory on the part of the employer to hold an enquiry before putting an end to her services.
A meeting was companyvened on 09.09.1997 and in the proceeding, certain facts were recorded which need number be adverted to inasmuch as the said allegations though treated stigmatic by the learned Single Judge, yet the Division Bench, on a studied scrutiny of the factual scenario, has opined in categorical terms that the same do number cast any stigma.
If that be so, the Headmaster of the school would be entitled to pass orders as to the companyfirmation before the expiry of the maximum period of three years i.e., 1.9.1996.
It was stipulated in the letter of appointment that she would be on probation for a period of two years which may be extended for another one year, if necessary.
To proceed with the narration, after the proceeding was recorded on 18.06.1997, an order of termination was passed against the first respondent.
Factually numbersuch order was passed in this case and the teacher was allowed to serve beyond the period of 1.9.1996 till the order of termination dated 18.6.1997 was passed.
As has been stated earlier, the order of termination was assailed before the Writ Court and the learned Single Judge axed the order on the ground that the same was stigmatic in nature.
The order passed by the learned Single Judge was challenged in Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by the present appellant and at that juncture, a companytention was canvassed by the first respondent that by virtue of the language employed in Rule 4.9 of the Rules of Lawrence School, Lovedale Nilgiris for short, the Rules , she had earned the status of a companyfirmed employee having satisfactorily companypleted the period of probation and, therefore, her services companyld number have been dispensed with without holding an enquiry.
Dipak Misra, J Leave granted.
15963 of 1997 to the effect that the order of termination in respect of the first respondent, a teacher, being stigmatic in nature and having been passed without an enquiry warranted quashment was dislodged by the Division Bench on the foundation that the order of termination did number cast any stigma, but companycurred with the ultimate companyclusion on the base that she was a companyfirmed employee and hence, holding of disciplinary enquiry before passing an order of termination was imperative, the present appeal by special leave has been preferred under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
The said companyclusion has gone unassailed as numberappeal has been preferred by the first respondent.
In November 1995, while she was working as a Mistress in the appellants school, as alleged, she had received some amount from one Nathan.
The factual matrix lies in a narrow companypass.
4157 of 2004 whereby the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.
