Case Note & Summary
The judgment involves two writ petitions arising from the same order of the School Tribunal dated 28.01.2014 in Appeal No.11/2008. The petitioners in WP No.3487/2014 are the management/employer (Krantisurya Mahatma Phule Education Society and the Head Master) of respondent no.1 (Anil Wandekar), and the petitioner in WP No.3525/2014 is Lahanu Naikwadi, the employee appointed in place of respondent no.1. Both challenged the Tribunal's order which declared the termination of respondent no.1 dated 10.06.2007 as illegal. The background is that respondent no.1 was appointed as a teacher on probation for two years by a written order dated 10.02.2006, following due procedure. However, before completing his probation, his services were terminated by a written order dated 10.06.2007 on the ground of unsatisfactory performance. The matter had been remanded by this Court earlier, and after remand, the Tribunal considered Section 5(3) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the Rules of 1981. The core legal issue was whether the termination complied with Section 5(3) read with Rules 14 and 15. Rule 14 requires assessment of the employee's work, and Rule 15 provides for termination of service during probation. The court noted that the management had assessed the work of respondent no.1 and found it unsatisfactory, and had given him an opportunity of hearing before termination. The Tribunal had erred in holding that the termination was illegal. The High Court allowed the management's petition (WP No.3487/2014) and dismissed the employee's petition (WP No.3525/2014), setting aside the Tribunal's order and upholding the termination.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Probationary Employee - Section 5(3) of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 read with Rules 14 and 15 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 - The court considered whether the termination of a probationary teacher for unsatisfactory performance complied with the statutory requirements. The Tribunal had set aside the termination, but the High Court held that the management had followed the procedure under Rules 14 and 15, including assessment of work and giving an opportunity of hearing. The termination was upheld as valid. (Paras 4-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of respondent no.1 (Anil Wandekar) was as per Section 5(3) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 read with Rules 14 and 15 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed Writ Petition No.3487 of 2014 filed by the management and dismissed Writ Petition No.3525 of 2014 filed by the substitute employee. The impugned order of the School Tribunal dated 28.01.2014 was set aside, and the termination order dated 10.06.2007 was upheld.
Law Points
- Termination of probationary employee
- Unsatisfactory performance
- Compliance with Rules 14 and 15
- Section 5(3) of MEPS Act
- 1977
- Assessment of work
- Opportunity of hearing
