NIRAJ SINGH Vs. SHISHU VIHAR MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.

(2.) The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 27th February, 2006 passed by the School Tribunal, Mumbai in Appeal No. 123/2000. The challenge is on the ground that irrespective of the nature of the appointment letter issued by the Management, the petitioner was deemed to have been appointed on probation in terms of section 5 of the M. E. P. S. Act read with Rule 10 of the m. E. P. S. Rules and, therefore, the Management could not have terminated the services of the petitioner without following the usual procedure prescribed under the law which would include issuance of notice, holding of inquiry and appropriate order. In the case in hand, undisputedly, the petitioner was sought to be terminated by issuing an order dated 28th March, 2000 informing the petitioner that her services would stand terminated with effect from 29th April, 2000. It was also sought to be contended that though the appointment order discloses that the petitioner was appointed in the post meant for reserved category, the roster which was maintained by the Management discloses that the petitioner was in fact appointed in the post meant for open category.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed under the appointment letter dated 13th of July, 1998. The said letter of appointment dated 13th July, 1998 apparently discloses that the petitioner had applied for the post of asstt. teacher and she was accordingly called for the interview on 11th July, 1998 and thereafter on selection, she was appointed as the Assistant Teacher. It is not in dispute that she continued to be a teacher in the respondent's school till april, 2000 and pursuant to the letter dated 28th March, 2000 her services were sought to be terminated with effect from 29th April, 2000 and intimation in that regard was given to her one month in advance.