VINAYAK VIDYADAYINI TRUST Vs. ARUNA T PRABHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Rule heard forthwith, by consent. The petitioner No. 1 is a registered Public Trust and Society and is running a recognised and aided private school. The school is a secondary private school. The petitioner No. 1 the trust and the petitioner No. 2, the Head Mistress of the school are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20th July, 2002 passed by the Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal, Mumbai in Appeal Nos. 73 of 1995 and 119 of 1995 filed by the respondent No. 1, the concerned teacher to challenge the two orders of her termination dated 29th April, 1995 and 1st July, 1995.

(2.) IT appears that when the respondent teacher was issued the first order of termination dated 29th April, 1995, she approached the School Tribunal to challenge the said order being illegal and improper. It appears that the School Tribunal granted an ad interim ex parte stay on 8th May, 1995. It further appears that the petitioner after coming to know the order of the School Tribunal withdrew the termination order dated 29th April, 1995 on 15th June, 1995 and reinstated the respondent teacher. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner again issued an order of termination dated 1st July, 1995 to once again dispense with the services of the respondent No. 1. Since the earlier order of termination dated 29th April, 1995 was withdrawn by the petitioner school, the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 viz. , 73 of 1995 did not survive and the same was withdrawn by the respondent No. 1 teacher. The School Tribunal has heard the subsequent Appeal No. 119 of 1995 on merits and decided the same in favour of the respondent No. 1 by granting her reinstatement with full backwages and all service benefits. The petitioners are before this Court to give challenge to the said judgment and order of the School Tribunal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that the petitioners had appointed the respondent No. 1 as Assistant Teacher on probation for a period of 2 years from 6th July, 1993 to 5th July, 1995. There is also no dispute that the petitioners had issued the first order of termination on 29th April, 1995 which was subsequently withdrawn and the respondent teacher was reinstated on 15th June, 1995. Thereafter, by an order dated 1st July, 1995, the petitioners terminated the service of the respondent No. 1 stating that the management was not satisfied with her service and, therefore, she was terminated with immediate effect. The petitioners justified the order of termination before the School Tribunal as also before this Court on the ground that the respondent No. 1 was appointed on probation and that her work was not satisfactory and, therefore, she was terminated from employment. Shri Panikar, the learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioners submits that as the respondent teacher was only on probation, no grounds were required to be stated in the order of termination. He further submitted that since her work and attendance was not satisfactory she was terminated from employment during the probation period. He also submitted that it was not that the petitioners were required to issue any memos to her during the period of probation to convey to her that her work was not satisfactory. Shri Panikar has also relied upon a show cause notice dated 23rd June, 1995 (after reinstating her ). He pointed out that during the probation period, she had taken a number of casual leaves and that she was also often coming late in the school. In the show cause notice, there are other incidents which are mentioned such as the teacher, though had given residential address of Andheri was actually residing at Bhayander; that the teacher did not involve the participation of the students; that the daily attendance register of pupils was not maintained neatly and properly and that there were mistakes and erasers which appear to have been rectified subsequently.