Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Tulsiram Kashinath Gaulkar, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 1/7/1985 on a temporary basis as he was not a trained qualified teacher (not passed B.Ed.). His appointment was on a year-to-year basis. He was deputed for B.Ed. course in 1992-93 and completed it in 1994, after which he was appointed on probation for two years w.e.f. 4/7/1994. Respondent no.1 terminated his services by order dated 21/3/1996 w.e.f. 30/4/1996. The appellant challenged the termination before the School Tribunal in Appeal No.STN119/1996, which was dismissed on 24/11/1998. He then filed Writ Petition No.220/1999 before the learned Single Judge, which was dismissed on 7/7/2009. The appellant filed the present Letters Patent Appeal. The appellant argued that the termination order was stigmatic as it contained allegations that he had not answered letters, illegally signed the muster register, and misbehaved with the Headmaster, and that it mentioned his appointment was against a reserved post. He contended that the School Tribunal and Single Judge failed to consider these facts. The court heard both sides and held that the termination was simpliciter and not stigmatic, as the appellant was a temporary employee and the order merely terminated his services without imposing any punishment. The court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination Simpliciter - Temporary Appointment - The appellant was appointed as Assistant Teacher on temporary basis and his services were terminated by order dated 21/3/1996. The termination order mentioned that his appointment was against a reserved post and that he had not answered letters, illegally signed muster, and misbehaved with Headmaster. The court held that the termination was simpliciter and not stigmatic, as the appellant was a temporary employee and the order did not impose any punishment but merely terminated his services in accordance with the terms of appointment. (Paras 1-5) B) Service Law - School Tribunal - Appeal - The School Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal against termination, and the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The Division Bench upheld both orders, finding no merit in the appeal. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination order dated 21/3/1996 was stigmatic and punitive, requiring an inquiry, or was a simpliciter termination of a temporary employee.
Final Decision
The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 7/7/2009 and the judgment of the School Tribunal dated 24/11/1998 are upheld.
Law Points
- Termination simpliciter
- stigmatic termination
- temporary appointment
- reserved post
- probation
- Section 5 MEPS Act
