PRIMROSE SCHOOL Vs. K. VEERAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These five appeals arise out of similar interim orders passed by the Single Bench, in effect restraining orders of termination of service passed by the appellant-school.

(2.) There is no dispute that the appellant is an unaided private school operating in Puducherry. It also appears to be the undisputed position that the letters of appointment given by the appellant to the writ petitioners while confirming their appointments or inducting them into service clearly made out that the employees had to give notice of three months before leaving, but the employer was entitled to terminate the services without notice, if the performance of the employee was found to be unsatisfactory. The appellant maintains that if such was the condition of appointment in each case, it was for the employer to terminate the services of the employees and no restriction could be placed on the employer in implementing its decision.

(3.) The respondent-writ petitioners refer to the Pondicherry School Education Rules, 1996, framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 49 of the Pondicherry School Education Act, 1987. Rule 51 of the said Rules of 1996 has been made applicable to employees of recognized private schools, whether aided or not. The writ petitioners contend that in the light of such rules, unaided private schools cannot take the law into their own hands and have to adhere to the procedure spelt out by the rules before terminating the services of any employee.