The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of the respondent No. 2's employment was not in accordance with the provisions of section 5(3) of M.E.P.S. Act, and the management breached the provisions of Rule 15 of M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981 by not maintaining confidential reports and communicating adverse remarks to the respondent No. 2.

Headnote:
Termination - Probation - Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Act, 1978 - [TERMINATION] - [EMPLOYMENT] - [Section 5(2) of M.E.P.S. Act] - The School Tribunal found that the respondent No. 2 was appointed to fill up a permanent vacancy and was appointed on probation for the period of two years as per section 5(2) of M.E.P.S. Act. The School Tribunal further found that the management did not produce any record to show that they had written and maintained confidential reports of respondent No. 2 and communicated adverse remarks to him as per mandatory provisions of Rule 15 of M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981. It held that provisions of Rule 15(6) requiring objective assessment of employee on probation by the head are breached. The Tribunal concluded that in the absence of any such material on record, it cannot accept the plea of petitioner management that services of respondent No. 2 employee were terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory performance. The School Tribunal has also perused the order of termination dated 23-9-1988 and found that the said order does not disclose that services of respondent No. 2 were terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory work or behaviour during the period of probation. It is held that petitioners have not mentioned any such reason in the said order of termination and therefore, it held that the services of respondent No. 2 were not terminated as per provisions of section 5(3) of M.E.P.S. Act.
Fact of the Case:

The respondent No. 2 was employed as an Assistant Teacher by the petitioners by order dated 01-12-1986 for the period up to 30th April, 1987. During the relevant period, his qualifications were S.S.C., D.Ed. By order dated 01-05-1987, he was continued up to 30th April, 1988. By order dated 23-9-1988, his services were terminated with effect from the same day and he was paid an amount of Rs. 1,222/- by cheque in lieu of one month's notice. This termination was challenged by respondent No. 2 by filing an appeal under section 9 of Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Act, 1978 (MEPS Act) before the School Tribunal at Amravati and Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.
Finding of the Court:

The School Tribunal found that the respondent No. 2 was appointed to fill up a permanent vacancy and was appointed on probation for the period of two years as per section 5(2) of M.E.P.S. Act. The School Tribunal further found that the management did not produce any record to show that they had written and maintained confidential reports of respondent No. 2 and communicated adverse remarks to him as per mandatory provisions of Rule 15 of M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981. It held that provisions of Rule 15(6) requiring objective assessment of employee on probation by the head are breached. The Tribunal concluded that in the absence of any such material on record, it cannot accept the plea of petitioner management that services of respondent No. 2 employee were terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory performance. The School Tribunal has also perused the order of termination dated 23-9-1988 and found that the said order does not disclose that services of respondent No. 2 were terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory work or behaviour during the period of probation. It is held that petitioners have not mentioned any such reason in the said order of termination and therefore, it held that the services of respondent No. 2 were not terminated as per provisions of section 5(3) of M.E.P.S. Act.
Issues: The issues in the case revolved around the termination of the respondent No. 2's employment, the application of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Act, 1978, and the breach of provisions of Rule 15 of M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981 by the management.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the respondent No. 2 was appointed on probation for the period of two years as per section 5(2) of M.E.P.S. Act. The Court further found that the management breached the provisions of Rule 15 of M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981 by not maintaining confidential reports and communicating adverse remarks to the respondent No. 2. The Court concluded that the termination of the respondent No. 2's services was not in accordance with the provisions of section 5(3) of M.E.P.S. Act.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment of the School Tribunal dated 30th April, 1991 was quashed and set aside. The writ petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute with no order as to costs. The petition was allowed, and the termination of the respondent No. 2's employment was upheld.

JUDGMENT - DHARMADHIKARI B.P., J.: - By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India the petitioners i.e. Management and Head Mistress of the School challenge order and judgment dated 30th April, 1991 passed by respondent No. 1 School Tribunal in Appeal No. 143/88-A with further directions. Brief facts giving rise in filing the present petition are as under:

2. Respondent No. 2 was employed as an Assistant Teacher by the petitioners by order dated 01-12-1986 for the period up to 30th April, 1987. During relevant period his qualifications were S.S.C., D.Ed. This order specifically stated that his appointment was purely temporary from 01-12-1986 to 30-04-1987. By order dated 01-05-1987, he was continued up to 30th April, 1988. It appears that by order dated 23-9-1988 his services were terminated with effect from the same day and he was paid an amount of Rs. 1,222/- by cheque in lieu of one month's notice. This order is issued by Principal of Smt. Ushabai Deshmukh Junior College, Achalpur City. This termination was challenged by respondent No. 2 by filing above mentioned appeal under section 9 of Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "MEPS Act") before respondent No. 1 School Tribunal at Amravati and Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. The respondent No. 2 contended that he was appointed against the permanent post and as such he ought to have been appointed on probation for a period of two years from beginning i.e. from 01-12-1986. He contended that the management demanded certain amount from him and he paid Rs. Eight Thousand to petitioner No. 1 and he was unable to pay further an amount of Rs. Five Thousand demanded from him. He concludes that on account of this failure his services were terminated. He contended that he has served school for 21 months satisfactorily and no adverse remarks were issued to him. He points out that by letter dated 1-9-1988 serious charges of misbehaviour were levelled against him and as such his services could not have been terminated without completing departmental enquiry as contemplated under Rules 33, 36 and 37 of M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981. He contends that his termination is illegal and against the principles of natural justice. The School Tribunal issued notice to the petitioner management and both the petitioners (respondents before School Tribunal) filed their reply alongwith documents in support of their submission. They stated that respondent No. 2 was appointed as Assistant Teacher in their school from 1-12-1986 and he continued till termination of his service on 23-9-1988. They contended that large number of complaints were received from the students and their parents and also teachers against him. The petitioner No. 2 Head Mistress brought those complaints to the notice of respondents No. 2. It is alleged that respondent No. 2 expressed apology and he was continued with a view to give him chance to improve. But he failed to show any improvement in his behaviour and as such he was not required to be retained in service and came to be terminated. The petitioners contended before the School Tribunal that he was appointed on year to year basis temporarily and his services were liable to be terminated by giving him one month's pay or one month's notice in lieu of such notice. They denied that respondent No. 2 was appointed on probation and that no adverse remarks were communicated or given to him during his tenure of service. They contended that communication dated 1-9-1988 given to respondent No. 2 was itself sufficient to reflect upon his behaviour. It is further alleged that opportunity was given to the respondent No. 2 to explain his stand in relation to various complaints received from guardians of the girl students and his response was not satisfactory. Therefore, decision was taken by the management to terminate his services w.e.f. 23-9-1988. The termination is plain and simple and does not cause any stigma up

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(Bom) 1430

Cases Referred (4)

Login now and unlock premium legal research