LAWS(BOM)-2006-2-83

RAJKUMAR ONKAR JAGTAP Vs. SECRETARY KSHTRAKULOTPANA

Decided On February 14, 2006
RAJKUMAR ONKAR JAGTAP Appellant
V/S
SECRETARY, KSHATRAKULOTPANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, at the instance of the aggrieved Assistant Teacher, aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of the School Tribunal. Mumbai, passed in Appeal No. MUM/132/1997 on 17-4-2002, whereby order of termination dated 14-10-1997 issued by the respondent No. 1 came to be upheld. Facts :

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed on probation for 2 years as Assistant Teacher. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner belongs to s. C. category and holds M. A. B. Ed, degree. It is also not in dispute that before completion of probation period, services of the petitioner came to be terminated by giving him one month's notice indicating therein that his work was not satisfactory. It is also not in dispute that during the probation period he was served with memo dated 3-10-1997 with further memos issued from time to time the School Tribunal after considering the submissions advanced by the parties to the appeal came to the conclusion that termination order dated 14-10-1997 was in accordance with law and that the petitioner was not entitled to reinstatement with full backwages with consequential benefits. The aforesaid order of the School Tribunal is the subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rival Submissions :

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order of termination is bad in law as it was not preceded by regular enquiry or w. P. No. 1640 of 2002 decided on 14-2-2006. (O. 6. C. J. , Bombay)opportunity of being heard. She further submits that order of" termination casts a stigma as such it could not have been upheld by the Tribunal. She placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of V. P. Ahuja vs. Stale of Punjab, air 2000 SC 1080, wherein the Apex Court has observed that a probationer, or a temporary servant, is also entitled to certain protection and his services cannot be terminated arbitrarily; in a punitive manner without complying with the principles of natural justice. She, thus, prayed for setting aside impugned order of the School Tribunal.