PRATIBHA GUNWANTRAO THAKRE Vs. AADARSH SHIKSHAN SANSTHA BHUGAON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri G. R. Sadar, learned counsel for the petitioner. The present petition challenges the judgment of the School Tribunal dated 18.02.2017 whereby the challenge as raised to the termination of the petitioner, by an order dated 26.09.2015, has been negatived. The basic ground of challenges are as under:

(2.) It is material to note, that it is an admitted position that the petitioner was appointed by an order dated 07.03.2014, as Shikshan Sevak on probation which was for the period 07.03.2014 to 06.03.2017, to teach the subject of Mathematics. It is not disputed that the appointment was in pursuance to a prior advertisement in that regard. It is not disputed that the petitioner was terminated by an order dated 26.09.2015, which was prior to the completion of the period of probation.

(3.) The order dated 23.09.2015, is innocuous in nature, in as much as it simply states, that the services of the petitioner, stand terminated with immediate effect, in reference to the resolution No.2 dated 24.09.2015. The contention that the order is stigmatic in nature, is therefore, not apparent from bare perusal of the order of termination on the face of it. The right of the employer, to terminate the services of a person on probation, if it is not satisfied with the services of the employee, is clearly spell out statutorily from the provisions of Section 5(3) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The contention, that the order is stigmatic, and though on the face of the order, it does not appear to be so, however, for this purpose the resolution has to be looked into, which refers to the complaints of the parents of the students as to the standard of teaching by the petitioner and so also the reply of the respondent institution and specifically Para 6 before the School Tribunal, is clearly fallacious, for the reason that it is the order of termination, which has to be looked into for deciding whether it is stigmatic or not. Any information, input, material which has been considered by the Management or the School Authorities to come to a conclusion regarding the work of the petitioner / employee not been satisfactory during the period of probation, is clearly, within the domain of the Management. The contention, that the complaints by the students out to have been proved by the Management, therefore does hold any water. Similar is the position in respect of the averment as contained in Paras 6 of the written statement on behalf of the Management, as the use of the word 'misconduct' as occurring therein, is clearly referable to the lack of satisfaction by the Management, regarding the work of the petitioner and nothing else and does not spell out a misconduct, as is used in the normal sense of the expression. The contention that the order of termination is stigmatic in nature and therefore, the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated without conducting any enquiry, is without any merit and is rejected. The reliance by Mr. Sadar, learned counsel for the petitioner on Vishwanath Dnyanoba Kirade Vs. Nav Akanksha Mahila Mandal Parbhani and others 2015(3) Mh L.J. 725, is clearly misplaced for the reason that the said case, related to a temporary employee and not an employee on probation.