Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing immediately. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

2. Admitted facts are that prior to June-2003 present petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher for some time on temporary basis. However on 20.06.2003, she was appointed as Assistant Teacher on probation of two years by respondent-Management. According to the petitioner, on 29.12.2004, respondents issued an order terminating her services with immediate effect on the ground that her performance during the probation was not satisfactory. This order was challenged before the School Tribunal in Appeal No. 301 2006 by present petitioner on several grounds. One of the grounds was that the provisions of Section 5(3) of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (For short 'the Act') were not followed as neither one month's notice was given to her nor the salary in lieu of this period was given to her along with termination order. On the other hand, it was contended by the Management that along with termination order a cheque of one month's salary was sent to her but she had refused to accept the same and thus the provisions had been followed. After hearing the parties, the School Tribunal dismissed the appeal holding that on the reading of the provisions of Section 5(3) with rule 28(1) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (For short "the Rules") notice of one month or one month's salary is not mandatory. That order has been challenged in the present petition.

3. On perusal of the pleadings of the parties as well as copy of the order dated 29.12.2004 issued by the Management to the petitioner terminating the services of petitioner, it appears that there was no reference either to one month's notice or payment of salary in lieu of notice. In fact, that order dated 29.12.2004 clearly shows that her services were terminated because her performance was not satisfactory and she was relieved from the School from the date of issuance of that termination order. It further clarified that she was no more employee of the School. From this, it is clear that neither one month's notice was issued nor salary in lieu of the notice was given to her along with order dated 29.12.2004. The School Tribunal, after referring to the provisions of Section 5(3) and Rule 28(1) came to the conclusion that issuance of one month's notice or payment of salary in lieu of notice is not mandatory and. therefore. merely because one months' notice was not given or salary in lieu of the notice period was not given. termination cannot be invalidated, particularly when the services were terminated during the probation period on the ground that her performance was not satisfactory.

4. Section 5(1) of the Act provides that the Management shall as soon as possible fill in the manner prescribed every permanent vacancy in the private school by appointment of persons duly qualified to fill in the said vacancy. There is no doubt that petitioner was duly qualified and she was appointed on probation of two years with effect from 26.03.2003 against a permanent vacancy, Her appointment was also approved by the Education Officer with effect from 26.03.2003. Section 5(2) (2A) and (3) of the Act read as follows:-

"5. (1)

(2) Every person appointed to fill a permanent vacancy except shikshan sevak shall be on probation for a period of two years. Subject to the provisions of subsection (3) and (4), he shall on completion of this probation period of two years be deemed to have been confirmed.

Provided that, every person appointed as shikshan sevak shall be on probation for a period of three years.

2(A) Subject to the provisions of subsection (3) and (4), Shikshan sevak shall, on completion of the probation period of three years, be deemed to have been appointed and confirmed as a teacher.

(3)