ORAL JUDGMENT :- Heard. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 27th February, 2006 passed by the School Tribunal, Mumbai in Appeal No. 123/2000. The challenge is on the ground that irrespective of the nature of the appointment letter issued by the Management, the petitioner was deemed to have been appointed on probation in terms of section 5 of the M. E. P. S. Act read with Rule 10 of the M. E. P. S. Rules and, therefore, the Management could not have terminated the services of the petitioner without following the usual procedure prescribed under the law which would include issuance of notice, holding of inquiry and appropriate order. In the case in hand, undisputedly, the petitioner was sought to be terminated by issuing an order dated 28th March, 2000 informing the petitioner that her services would stand terminated with effect from 29th April, 2000. It was also sought to be contended that though the appointment order discloses that the petitioner was appointed in the post meant for reserved category, the roster which was maintained by the Management discloses that the petitioner was in fact appointed in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document