Case Note & Summary
The case 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 facts are 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. Before completing his probation, his services were terminated by a written order dated 10.06.2007 on the ground of unsatisfactory performance. The Tribunal allowed his appeal, holding the termination illegal. This is the second round of litigation after remand by the High Court. The legal issue is whether the termination complied with 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. The management argued that the termination was valid as the employee's performance was unsatisfactory during probation. The employee contended that no procedure was followed. The court analyzed Rule 14, which provides for assessment of work, and Rule 15, which deals with termination. The court held that the management failed to follow the mandatory procedure of assessment and giving an opportunity of hearing before termination. Therefore, the termination was illegal. The court dismissed both writ petitions, upholding the Tribunal's order. The decision favors the employee (respondent no.1).
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 termination of a probationary teacher for unsatisfactory performance complied with statutory requirements. Held that the management must follow the procedure under Rule 14 for assessment and Rule 15 for termination, including giving an opportunity of hearing. Since the management failed to do so, the termination was illegal. (Paras 4-6) B) Service Law - Probation - Assessment of Work - Rule 14 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 - The court noted that Rule 14 requires the employee to prepare a plan for assessment and the management to evaluate performance. Non-compliance with this rule renders termination invalid. (Para 5) C) Service Law - Termination during Probation - Opportunity of Hearing - Section 5(3) of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - The court held that even during probation, termination for unsatisfactory performance cannot be done without giving the employee an opportunity to show cause. The management's failure to provide such opportunity made the termination order illegal. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of respondent no.1 (Anil Wandekar) during probation 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
Both writ petitions are dismissed. The order of the School Tribunal dated 28.01.2014 in Appeal No.11/2008 is upheld. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Termination of probationary employee must comply with Section 5(3) of 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
- Unsatisfactory performance during probation requires prior assessment and opportunity of hearing
- Non-compliance renders termination illegal
