The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the Management to terminate the services of a probationer based on unsatisfactory performance and behavior, as provided under Rule 15 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, and section 5(3) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977.

Per KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.: - In this appeal notice was issued for final disposal of the matter at the admission stage and accordingly the matter was heard and is being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself. We have heard at length the Advocates for the appellant and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The respondent No.3 is a formal party.

2. The appeal arises from the order dated 16-9-2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 3368 of 1993. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has set aside the Judgment of the School Tribunal dated 1-10-1993 in Appeal No. 38 of 1989. The School Tribunal had set aside the order of the Management dated 6-4-1988 terminating the services of the appellant/petitioner and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in the post of peon as a probationer within 40 days. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the said order was stayed.

3. The order of termination of services of the petitioner was set aside by the Tribunal on the ground of failure on the part of the Management to comply with the requirements of Rule 15 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, hereinafter called as "the said Rules" whereas the learned Single Judge, considering the materials on record, has held the said finding of the Tribunal to be contrary to the records and has confirmed about due compliance of the said provision of law by the Management.

4. Only point which is sought to be canvassed in this petition relates to interpretation of Rule 15 of the said Rules r/w section 5(3) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, hereinafter called as "the said Act".

5. The section 5(3) of the said Act provides thus:

"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."

6. The sub-rule (6) of the Rule provides thus:

"Performance of an employee appointed on probation shall be objectively assessed by the Head during the period of his probation and a record of such assessment shall be maintained." 7. Plain reading of the provisions comprised under Rule 15(6) would disclose that as regards the employees on probation, the question of recording of confidential reports in terms of Rule 15, sub-rules (1) to (5), does not arise. The sub-rule (6) specifically provides that in the case of such type of an employee his performance should be objectively assessed by the Head during the period of his probation and of course the records of such assessment shall be maintained by the Management.

8. In (Shri Vitthcil Pandharinath Dhere v. Shree Kedamath Shikshan Sanstha and others)!, reported 1998(1) Bom. C.R. 592, the Division Bench of this Court while interpreting the said section 5(3) and the said Rule 15(6), held that even if the work of a probationer is found to be 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 about the behaviour of such employee to be not satisfactory. It further ruled that the Management is the best judge of the situation as to whom to continue.

9. In the case in hand, the appellants services came to be terminated by the order dated 6-4-1988 informing him that his performance being not satisfactory, he was not required to be continued in the employment. The records produced before the School Tribunal apparently disclosed various complaints received from other employees including the Head Master and teachers about the objectionable conduct on the part of the appellant. The complaints disclosed that the appellant used to avoid to be regular in performing his duties and used to spend the duty hours either in the canteen or hotel and also b was found to have developed a quarrelsome a attitude toward

Click Here to Read the rest of this document