Vitthal Pandharinath Dhere vs Kedarnath Shikshan Sanstha and others

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1996 Supreme(Bom) 451

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
N.D. Vyas S.S. Nijjar, JJ.
Shri Vitthal Pandharinath Dhere ..... Petitioner.
Versus
Shree Kedarnath Shikshan Sanstha others ..... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 4272 of 1988, decided on 19-8-1996.
Advocates appeared :
Subhash Langote, for the petitioner.
R.V. More, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
V.V. D’gama, A.G.P., for respondent Nos. 5 6.

Headnote:Sections 4(6) and 5(3)-Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, Rule 15(6)-Validity of termination-Appointment of teacher on probation-Further granted increment on satisfaction-Got terminated on one month notice-Management not having any record an performance-Contention- Termination on representation of staff-Held-Management is the Judge to decide such matters.-Section 4(6) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act speaks of suspension, dismissal or removal from service which can be done only in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules made there-under. Section 5(3) of the Act provides that if, in the opinion of the Management, the work or behaviour of any probationer, during the period of his probation, is not satisfactory, the management may terminate his services at any time during the said period after giving him one months notice or salary of one month in lieu of notice. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on Rule 15(6) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, which are framed under the said Act. Sub-rule (6) provides that performance of an employee appointed on probation shall be objectively assessed by the Head Master during the period of his probation and a record of such assessment shall be main- tained. Relying on the provisions. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact the Head Master never attended the school and in fact there was nothing to show that during the period of his service, may be on probation that any record of any assessment was maintained by the school. Thus, he submitted that in the absence of such objective assessment, the termination of the petitioner was colourable. Section 5(3) of the Act which provides for termination of services of an employees speaks of work or behaviour of any probationer not found satisfactory. Even assuming that the work of the petitioner was found satisfactory on the basis of non-production of any confidential record as provided under Rule 15(6), the Management would be free to come to a conclusion that the behaviour of the employee was not satisfactory. In the instant case, the Tribunal has relied on the representation which was received by the Management which promoted the Management to pass a resolution in question. The resolution passed by the Management was passed on 27.3.1987 and referring to the representation the resolution stated that the same was received from the teaching and non-teaching staff and it was dangerous and unsatisfactory to keep the petitioner in service as according to the Management, the complaints were found to be true and thus, a serious note was taken of the fact and that the presence of the petitioner was not found in the interest of the school. The Management is best Judge of the situation as to whom to continue and whom not to continue.
Sections 4(6) and 5(3)-Simplicitor-Services on probation-Got terminated-Contention-Career suffered-Held-The letter informing termination may not create stigma on career-In case it does teacher cannot blame the Management.-Admittedly, when the petitioner was on probation, it is the satisfaction of the Management which decides the issue as to whether a person on probation requires to be continued or not. Coming to the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, that it would result into a stigma being attached to the character of the petitioner, in Courts opinion, suffice it to say that the order challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal simply stated that his services were not required. If, as a result of the appeal preferred by the petitioner certain facts comes to light and if, they are interpreted as a stigma to the character of the petitioner, the petitioner has himself to blame.
Rule 15(6)-See Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, 1977, Sections 4(6) and 5(3).

JUDGMENT - N.D. VYAS, J.:---By the present writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the judgment and order of the School Tribunal, Pune, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner is dismissed. By the said appeal, the petitioner had challenged the termination order passed by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

2.Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows :

The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Shree Kedar High School of which one Mr. M.S. Patil was the Head Master. This appointment had taken place on 24th June 1985 and although no appointment letter was received, the admitted position is that the petitioner was appointed on probation of two years. It is the petitioner's contention that on the completion of one year, the petitioner was given annual increment in service and that during his tenure, the results of the standards to which he was teaching were excellent. On 31st March 1987, a notice of termination was issued by the said School authority simply stating that for the Academic Year starting from 15th June 1987, the petitioner's services were not required and, therefore, on the completion of the Academic year on 30th April 1987 he was required to hand over charge. Thus a month's notice was given to the petitioner. Being dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the School Tribunal, Pune and as mentioned above, the appeal having been decided against the petitioner, the present petition is preferred.

3.Mr. Langote, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there was no material before the management to have prompted the management to terminate the services. In fact it was his grievance that the alleged material on the basis whereof the resolution passed by the management terminating the services if tested objectively would show that in fact there was no material before the school authorities. He submitted that under section 4(6) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools, (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), no employee of a private school can be suspended, dismissed or removed or his services can be otherwise terminated or he can be reduced in rank, by the management, except in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the Rules made in that behalf, meaning thereby that the services were not properly terminated and that by using the excuse of terminating the services simpliciter, in fact a stigma was attached to his character.

4.In order to appreciate the submissions, it is necessary to refer to certain provisions of the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder. As mentioned above, section 4(6) of the said Act speaks of suspension, dismissal or removal from service which can be done only in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and Rules made thereunder. Section 5(3) of the said Act provides that if in the opinion of the management, the work or behaviour of any probationer, during the period of his probation, is not satisfactory, the management may terminate his services at any time during the said period after giving him one month's notice or salary of one month in lieu of notice. Mr. Langote also relied on Rule 15(6) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, which are framed under the said Act. The said sub-rule (6) provides that performance of an employee appointed on probation shall be objectively assessed by the Head Master during the period of his probation and a record of such assessment shall be maintained. Relying on the above mentioned provisions, Mr. Langote submitted that in fact the Head Master never attended the school and in fact there was nothing to show that during the period of his service, may be on probation, that any record of any assessment was maintained by the school. Thus he submitted that in the absence of such objective assessment, the termination of the petitioner was colourable.

5.Mr. More a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document