The said order of the School Tribunal was challenged by the Society before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court by way of Writ Petition No.939 of 1997.
While terminating his services, the Appellant Society also paid a sum of Rs.3076/ to the Respondent No.1 as numberice pay.
Ordinarily, the period of probation would have companye to an end on 7th August, 1994, but before companypletion of the said period, the service of the Respondent No.1 was terminated by the Management of the Appellant Society with effect from 31st July, 1994, although the order of termination was dated 1st August, 1994, on the ground that his work was found to be unsatisfactory during the period of probation.
The Tribunal also found that the Society had number taken any resolution to terminate the services of the Respondent No.1 and that the document on which the Management is said to have relied, reached the Management only on 6th August, 1994 when the services of the Respondent No.1 had already been terminated.
On account of the above, and in particular violation of Rule 15 6 of the MEPS Rules, 1981, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the order of termination with a direction on the Appellant Society to reinstate the Respondent No.1 in the same post from 1st April, 1997 and to pay him his arrears of salary from 1st August, 1994 till the date of re joining his duties in the school.
The basic ground of challenge taken by the Respondent No.1 was that there was numberhing wrong with his performance or companyduct and that the results in Mathematics, which was his subject, was cent percent.
Pursuant to the order of appointment, the Respondent No.1 joined his duties in the school on 8th August, 1992 and his appointment was approved by the Respondent No.2, The Education Officer Secondary Zilla Parishad, District Wardha, Bombay, on probation for a period of two years from 8th August, 1992.
The aforesaid appeal preferred by the Respondent No.1 was strongly opposed by the Management and it was reiterated that the services of the Respondent No.1 had to be terminated on account of the fact that his performance was number satisfactory.
It came to a finding that as required under Rules 14 and 15 of The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Conditions of Service Rules, 1981 hereinafter referred to as the MEPS Rules, 1981 , numberassessment of the work of Respondent No.1 had been done by the Appellant Society and that what had been produced on behalf of the Management had been prepared later on.
The School Tribunal, however, found in favour of the Respondent No.1 mainly on two grounds.
The Respondent No.1 challenged the order of termination of his service before the School Tribunal under Section 9 of The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Conditions of Service Regulation Act, 1977 hereinafter referred to as the MEPS, Act .
Notwithstanding the findings of the School Tribunal, the High Court also went into the matter in some detail and had occasion to companysider the effect of the provisions of Section 5 3 of the MEPS Act, Rules 14 and 15 and in particular sub Rule 6 of Rule 15 of the MEPS Rules, 1981.
Affirming the view taken by the School Tribunal, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition against which the instant appeal has been filed.
The Respondent No.1 also companytended that his termination was in companytravention of Section 5 3 of the MEPS Act and the Management did number have any material before it to justify the termination order.
CIVIL APPEAL NO 1318 OF 2008 ARISING OUT OF SLP CIVIL NO.7006 OF 2007 Altamas Kabir, J. Leave granted.
The Appellant No.1 herein is a Society which runs a school wherein the Respondent No.1 herein was appointed on probation on 4th August, 1992.
