(1.) This petition challenges an appellate order passed by the Presiding Officer of School Tribunal, Amravati.
(2.) The short facts of the case may be stated as follows :
(3.) It is mainly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 was on probation; her services, having been found satisfactory, were duly terminated by the order of the petitioner trust; and such order did cast any stigma on respondent No.2 for her future career and, being an order simpliciter for termination on account of unsatisfactory services during the period of probation, did envisage any enquiry. Learned counsel relies on several documents in this behalf including the memos addressed by the headmaster of the school to respondent No.2. Learned counsel submits that the School Tribunal erred in holding that prior permission of Deputy Director of Education was necessary for termination of respondent No.2. Learned counsel also submits that the School Tribunal erred in holding that the headmaster of the school did submit any report regarding unsatisfactory work of respondent No.2. Learned counsel relies on several judgments of our Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of his case that the termination of respondent No.2 was legal and proper and ought to have been interfered with by the School Tribunal in the appeal.