VINAYAK VIDHYADAYINI TRUST Vs. ARUNA T PRABHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 20/7/2002 rendered by the School Tribunal at Mumbai in Appeal Nos. 73 and 119 of 1995 and confirmed by this Court (Single Bench) in Writ Petition No. 2256 of 2002, as per the order dated 4/9/2002 and the present appellants were the writ petitioners.

(2.) The appellant No. 1 is a registered public trust and a society. It is running a private aided school by name 'Sri Sai Vidya Mandir' at Kharodi, Malad (West), Mumbai. Appellant No. 2 is the Headmistress of the said school. The present respondent No. 1 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on probation for two years i.e. from 6/7/1993 to 5/7/1995. She was issued an order of termination on 29/4/1995 and she challenged the same in Appeal No. 73 of 1995 filed under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short 'the MEPS Act'). On 8/5/1995 the School Tribunal was pleased to grant an ex parte ad-interim stay to the order of termination and when the same was intimated to the management, the termination order dated 29/4/1995 came to be withdrawn on 15/6/1995. However, on 23/6/1995 the teacher was served with a show cause notice, after she was reinstated and various charges were levelled against her. She replied to the said show cause notice by her written statement/explanation dated 28/6/1995. On 1/7/1995, the management passed a fresh order and terminated the service of the teacher from the same date and on the ground that her service was not satisfactory. This second order of termination gave rise to Appeal No. 119 of 1995 filed on 28/8/1995 before the School Tribunal. In the meanwhile Contempt Petition No. 221 of 1995 was also filed by the teacher before this Court alleging that the order of termination dated 1/7/199 5 was contemptuous and it was in breach of the ad-interim order passed on 8/5/199 5 by the School Tribunal. On 31/7/1995 the Contempt Petition was dismissed by this Court observing that, prima facie, there was no contempt as the order of termination dated 29/4/1995 was withdrawn and the teacher was reinstated in service on 15/6/1995. The management filed its written statement before the School Tribunal on 17/4/1997 and opposed the appeal i.e. Appeal No. 119 of 1995. It claimed that Appeal No. 73 of 1995 had become infructuous and the termination order dated 1/7/1995 was passed after issuing the show cause notice and considering the reply submitted by the teacher thereto. It was also claimed that the management had every right to terminate the service of the probationer if the service record during the probation period was not satisfactory and such an order was not stigmatic.

(3.) The School Tribunal framed the following issues and answered them accordingly: