GANDHI HINDI VIDYAPEETH KUNDGOL Vs. LALITHA C BALIHALLIMATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE management of Gandhi Hindi Vidyapeeth Kundgol has preferred the above revision petition against the order of the educational appellate Tribunal Dharwad directing reinstatement of the first respondent to a post from which she was removed by the order dated 28. 7. 1989 and also to pay ail arrears of salary taking the period from the date of termination up till now as on duty.

(2.) IT is stated that the petitioner institution is a trust running severalinstitutions including the second respondent. The first respondent was appointed on temporary as Assistant Teacher on 26. 7. 1980. But her conduct was not good and she was always a quarrelsome lady and never co-operated with the school authorities. Several complaints were made against her about the discharge of her duties. Despite warning as there was no improvement in her approach to the problem, a show cause notice was issued calling upon her to improve her service and conduct. The probation period was extended by six more months. Several memos given regarding her conduct and in fact the Asst. Educational Officer wrote to the petitioner to take action against her for misconduct. Finally by a resolution dated 20. 7. 1989 the management decided to terminate the services at the end of the extended period. The termination order was issued on 28. 7. 1989. Thereafter one V. L Bhajantri is working. The terminated teacher, the first respondent questioned the termination by approaching the Tribunal. He also filed another appeal in MAET 6/ 89 for direction to hand over the charge of the Head Master to her, after the DDPI being given direction to the management to hand over possession. Before the Tribunal the respondent examined herself as PW. 1 and relied upon Exs. P. 1 to P. 4. Respondent examined RWs. 1 to 4 and filed 34 documents Exs. D. 1 to D. 32. The Tribunal has set aside the order.

(3.) IT is submitted that the Approach of the Tribunal is wrong; thatthe termination has taken place because of the non-confirmation of the probation period. Therefore, it is not a discharge, empowering the Tribunal to direct reinstatement. The provisions of the Kamataka private Educational Institutions (Disciplinary and Control) Act 1975 is not attracted as it was only the contract between the master and senvant. In view of the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in 1981 (1) KLJ 559, such contract is terminable during the period of probation. The impugned order will affect the subsequent appointees as well. This, it is assailed.