The termination of services of a probationer is a removal from service and is appealable under section 22(1)(e) of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Act, 1984.

Headnote:
GOA, DAMAN AND DIU SCHOOL EDUCATION ACT, 1984 - SECTION 11(2), 22(1)(E) - RULES 83, 97 - APPEAL AGAINST TERMINATION OF SERVICES OF PROBATIONER - MAINTAINABILITY:
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a registered body conducting a recognized private school, challenged an order of the Administrative Tribunal overruling a preliminary objection about the maintainability of an appeal against the termination of services of a probationer teacher.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the appeal was maintainable under section 22(1)(e) of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Act, 1984, which provides for appeals against orders dismissing or removing employees from service, including probationers.
Issues: Whether an appeal lies against an order of discharge passed by the management under Rule 83 of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Rules, 1986.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted section 11(2) and section 22(e) of the Act along with Rule 83 and Rule 97 of the Rules and found that the term "employee" in section 22 includes probationers. It held that the termination of services of a probationer is a removal from service and falls within the ambit of section 22(e). The court emphasized that the Act and Rules provide protection to employees, including probationers, and that denying an appeal against termination of services would frustrate the object of the enactment.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and directed the Administrative Tribunal to hear and decide the appeal expeditiously.

JUDGMENT - C.S. DHARMADHIKARI, J.:---The petitioners, a registered body, are conducting the Assumpta Convent High School at Sazzora. This School is recognized by the S.S.C. Board of Goa, Daman and Diu. The School conducts classes right from K.G. to S.S.C. It is private aided School and receives aid from the Government. It is also the case of the petitioner that it is a minority institution within the meaning of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. The respondent No. 4 was appointed as assistant teacher on probation on 16th July, 1984. His services came to be terminated vide Order dated 11th May, 1987. Being aggrieved by the said Order of termination the said respondent filed an appeal before the first respondent the Administrative Tribunal under section 22(1)(e) of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). A preliminary objection was raised by the petitioner society about the maintainability of the appeal itself. The Tribunal by its Order dated 10th July, 1987, over-ruled the said preliminary objection and held that it had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the appeal. It is this Order dated 10th July, 1987, passed by the Tribunal which is challenged in the present writ petition.

2. Mr. D'Costa, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended before us that if section 11 and section 22(e) of the Act are read with Rule 83 and Rule 97 of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Rules, 1986, it is quite clear that no appeal lies against an order of discharge passed by the management under Rule 83 of the Rules. The termination of services of a probationer is not covered by section 11(2) of the Act and therefore, the appeal itself was not maintainable. The Tribunal has misconstrued the various provisions of the Act and the Rules and has therefore, committed an error apparent on the face of the record.

3. It is not possible for us to accept this contention. The relevant portion of section 11 of the Act reads as under :---

"Section 11(2).:---

Subject to any rule that may be made in this behalf, no employee of a recognised private school shall be dismissed, terminated except with the prior approval of the Director."

As per sub-section (5) of the said section, sub-section (2) shall have effect as if for the words "except with the prior approval of the Director" occurring therein, the words "except after an inquiry in accordance with the procedure specified in the said rule" have been substituted in its application, to an aided minority School. Then comes section 22 which provides for appeals against the various orders. Sub-section (1)(e) of the said section in terms lays down that an appeal shall lie to the Tribunal from the orders dismissing, removing from service any employee or reducing him in rank under sub-section (2) of section 11. The term "employee" is defined by sub-section (9) of section 2 to mean a teacher and includes every other employee working in a recognized school. The Order against which the appeal is filed is an order of termination or removal and therefore, an appeal lies under section 22 against the said Order.

4. However, it is contended by Mr. D'Costa that the provisions of section 11 as well as section 22 will have to be read subject to the Rules framed under the Act. Rule 83 deals with the probationers and Rule 97 provides a procedure for imposing major penalty. The appeal is provided only against the major penalties and not against an Order of termination or discharge simpliciter, passed under Rule 83 of the Rules. The relevant portion of Rule 83 namely sub-rule (1) reads as under :---

"R. 83(1) :

Every employee shall on initial appointment be on probation for a period of 2 years which may be extended by the appointing authority by another year and the services of an employee may be terminated with one month's notice without holding any enquiry during the period of probation if the work and the conduct of the employee, during the said period is not, in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document