Case Note & Summary
The First Respondent was appointed as Principal on probation from 3rd September 2001. On 6th July 2002, he was arrested by the Anti-Corruption Bureau for accepting a bribe of Rs.18,000 for admission. He was suspended. Subsequently, a complaint from a parent alleged that the First Respondent collected money from 22 other students for admission. The management sought an explanation, and the First Respondent admitted to collecting donations and admitting ineligible students. On 4th February 2003, the management terminated his services during probation, citing unsatisfactory work and behaviour, and paid one month's salary in lieu of notice. The First Respondent appealed to the School Tribunal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the termination was punitive and required a proper inquiry. The management challenged this order in the High Court. The High Court held that the termination was a simple termination of a probationer for unsatisfactory work, not a dismissal or removal. The First Respondent had no right to the post, and the management was entitled to terminate his services without holding an inquiry. The Tribunal's order was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Probation - Termination simpliciter - Section 9 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - The termination of a probationer for unsatisfactory work and behaviour, without stigma, is not a dismissal or removal and does not attract the protection of Section 9. The School Tribunal erred in entertaining the appeal. (Paras 1-6)
B) Service Law - Probation - Unsatisfactory work - Collection of donations for admission - The management's decision to terminate the probationer based on his own admission of collecting donations and admitting ineligible students was valid. The probationer had no right to the post and the termination was in accordance with the terms of probation. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of a probationary employee for unsatisfactory work and behaviour amounts to dismissal or removal entitling the employee to appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the School Tribunal dated 14th September 2005, and dismissed the appeal filed by the first respondent before the Tribunal.
Law Points
- Probationer has no right to the post
- termination for unsatisfactory work during probation is not punitive
- Section 9 appeal limited to cases of dismissal or removal
- termination simpliciter during probation valid
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (06) 15
WRIT PETITION NO.7567 OF 2005 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1585 OF 2006
Mr. A.G. Kothari for the Petitioners, Mr. Mandar Limaye for Respondent No.1
The Secretary/Rector, Hyderabad Sindh National College Board, Mumbai & Ors.
Deepak Indar Ahuja & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the School Tribunal allowing the appeal of the respondent against termination of his services as Principal during probation.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (management) sought to quash the order of the School Tribunal dated 14th September 2005 which set aside the termination of the first respondent.
Filing Reason
The management terminated the services of the first respondent during probation for unsatisfactory work and behaviour, including collection of donations for admission. The first respondent appealed to the School Tribunal which allowed the appeal. The management challenged the Tribunal's order.
Previous Decisions
The School Tribunal by order dated 14th September 2005 allowed the appeal of the first respondent and set aside the termination.
Issues
Whether the termination of a probationer for unsatisfactory work and behaviour amounts to dismissal or removal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977.
Whether the School Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against termination simpliciter during probation.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the termination was a simple termination of a probationer for unsatisfactory work, not a dismissal or removal, and therefore no appeal lay under Section 9.
The first respondent argued that the termination was punitive and based on allegations of misconduct, thus requiring an inquiry and appealable under Section 9.
Ratio Decidendi
A probationer has no right to the post and can be terminated for unsatisfactory work without holding an inquiry. Termination simpliciter during probation does not amount to dismissal or removal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, and therefore no appeal lies to the School Tribunal.
Judgment Excerpts
The termination of the services of the First Respondent was a termination simpliciter of a probationer whose work and behaviour were found to be unsatisfactory.
The First Respondent had no right to the post and the management was entitled to terminate his services without holding an inquiry.
Procedural History
The first respondent was appointed as Principal on probation on 3rd September 2001. He was arrested on 6th July 2002 for bribery and suspended. After receiving complaints and his explanation, the management terminated his services on 4th February 2003 during probation. The first respondent appealed to the School Tribunal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on 14th September 2005. The management filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the Tribunal's order.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977: Section 9
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules, 1981:
