The petitioner-the Management of Sri. Jagadhguru Renukacharya Education Society, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as “the Society” for short). The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Education Appellate Tribunal dated 25.11.2005 passed in MA.(EAT)No.2/2002 vide Annexure-A, by which the respondent’s appeal against the order of dismissal dated 4.12.2001 came to be allowed.

2. The petitioner-Society is registered under the Societies Registration Act and it runs number of educational institutions. The respondent was stated to be selected and appointed as a Clerk-cum-typist in a Law College run by the petitioner-society on 23.9.1996. Among others, the respondent’s pay and allowance was revised by petitioner-society w.e.f. 1.4.1999 from the pay of Rs. 1,950/- to that of Rs. 2,150/- vide Annexure-G2. The pay of the respondent and others was further revised on 16.2.2002 for the period from 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2001 vide Annexure-G3. While things stood thus the petitioner-society re-designated the respondent’s post from the clerk-cum-typist to that of Office Assistant. This is evident from Annexure-G3 wherein against the name of the respondent her designation has been shown as Office Assistant. It seems there was a proposal to discontinue the respondent’s service. However, the respondent submitted a representation for continuation of her service vide Annexure-G4. On 28.6.2001 the petitioner-Society issued a certificate to the respondent stating that her character and conduct are satisfactory and she is discharging the duties entrusted to her to the best satisfaction of her superiors vide Annexure-G5. At this juncture, the petitioner-society made the respondent to execute an agreement with the petitioner-society in respect of contractual appointment vide Annexure-“B”. The said agreement was executed on 1.7.2001. The said agreement is to the effect that respondent herein has to serve the petitioner-Society for the period from 1.7.2001 to 31.3.2002 as an Office Assistant on a monthly salary of Rs.3,150/- without any allowances. It was further agreed that the respondent would be on probation for a period of three months and if the work of the respondent is not satisfied her services would be terminated without notice before expiry of the period of probation and discretion is vested with the petitioner-society. If the respondent’s services were to be terminated after completion of probation period it was with the condition that either party may, in lieu of notice, pay the other party salary for the whole or part of the unexpired period of notice and terminate the contract. (It is to be noted that the stamp paper bares the date as 3.8.2001 issued on 31.8.2001 whereas the agreement is executed on 1.7.2001) On 2.8.2001 the respondent requested for release of salary for the month of July 2001 to the President of the petitioner-Society. The petitioner-society issued an office order by which her appointment has been extended from 1.7.2001 to 31.3.2002 and it was also indicated that this was on same terms and conditions as in previous year. It was also indicated that the respondent is required to execute an agreement on stamp paper worth Rs.20/- in prescribed form vide Annexure-G7. The petitioner-Society issued a certificate of service cum salary. Reading of the said certificate shows that the respondent is working in the petitioner-society w.e.f. 24.9.1996 and even her character has been appraised and also pay drawn by her is shown as Rs.3,150/- vide Annexure-G8. On 4.12.2001 the petitioner-Society terminated the services of the respondent vide Office Order No. SJRES.843/01-02. In the termination order it has been indicated that it would be effective from the afternoon of 4.12.2001, while enclosing a cheque for Rs.3,150- as per clause (3) of the agreement vide Annexure-D.

3. The respondent aggrieved by the order of termination dated