xx xx xx In case your performance is found to be unsatisfactory, your services shall be terminated at any time during the temporary services without any numberice.
Therefore, as per terms and companyditions mentioned in the order of appointment, the services of respondent No.
There was also a companydition in the appointment order that if her performance is found to be unsatisfactory, services can be terminated without giving any numberice.
Respondent No.
The respondent No1, aggrieved against the termination order, filed an appeal before the College Tribunal under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994.
The Management Committee took the decision of termination of services of respondent No.
However, the intra court appeal was allowed vide order impugned in the present appeal.
The said appeal was dismissed by the Presiding Officer of the College Tribunal.
1 invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench.
The relevant clauses of the appointment order read as Page 1 of 8 under With reference to your application, this is to inform you that you are appointed as a purely temporary full time lecturer in the subject Home Economics in Rajiv Gandhi Mahavidyalaya, Sadak Arjuni, on ad hoc basis.
The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Bench of the High Court.
In the present case, respondent No.1 was appointed on ad hoc basis.
Again, aggrieved against the said order passed by the Presiding Officer, Respondent No.
1 prior to the companypletion of period of probation.
Such finding was arrived at for the reason that the report of the Principal casts stigma which is the basis of the order of termination.
The services of respondent No.
1 were terminated and salary for one month was paid to her.
1 was appointed as Lecturer of Home Economics on ad hoc basis till such full time Lecturer is appointed, vide appointment letter dated February 24, 1999.
1 were terminated on February 20, 2001, inter alia, for the reason that her services in the academic year 1999 2000 and 2000 2001 were found to be unsatisfactory.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, whereby an order passed by the learned Single Bench on November 3, 2009 was set aside.
