KAMLESH R BHRAMBHATT Vs. MAHEMDABAD EDUCATION SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed being aggrieved of the judgement and order dated 20.10.2000 of the Gujarat Affiliated Colleges Services Tribunal at Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Application No.45 of 1999.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed by order dated 12.06.1997 with effect from 01.07.1997 as a Full Time Lecturer, a copy of the said order is at Annexure 'A' to this petition. One of the conditions on which the said appointment given was that, "the appointment for the academic year 1997-98 effective from 01.07.1997 will be on probation for one year." It is also on record that the petitioner was given the post of Principal on 01.07.1997 and he was to discharge the duties of the Principal and was get the admissible allowances for the same. The services of the petitioner were then extended for one year continuing him on probation. This was communicated to the petitioner by Office Order dated 25.05.1998.Thereafter, by communication dated 28.04.1999 the management brought to an end the services of the petitioner on the ground that his performance was not found satisfactory. The petitioner was paid the notice pay along with the aforesaid communication by a cheque of Rs.7485/-. This order dated 28.04.1999 was challenged before the Tribunal on various grounds, mainly, on the ground that the order is punitive in nature and that under section 14 of the Gujarat Affiliated College Services Tribunal Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") necessary approval which is required to be obtained from the Vice Chancellor was not obtained. The petitioner relied upon various decisions, which are enumerated in para 7 by the learned Judge of the Tribunal with a remark that the said judgements are not applicable to the facts of the petitioner.

(3.) The matter was contested before the Tribunal by the management contending that the order dated 28.04.1999 is not a punitive one, but it is an order of "discharge simpliciter". It was also contended that on a plain reading of section 14 of the Act, it is not applicable to a probationer and therefore, there was no question of obtaining an approval from the Vice Chancellor.