M.S. SONAK, J.

1. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 8th January, 1997 made by the School Tribunal, Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur allowing the appeal instituted by respondent No. 2 setting aside termination notice dated 16th August, 1994 and directed the reinstatement of the Respondent No. 2 with backwages and other allowances from the date of termination.

2. The respondent No. 2 came to be appointed as Assistant Teacher w.e.f 21st June, 1993 by the petitioner – management at the Haji Mukadam High School, Khed (“said school”) on probation for a period of two years. On 8th March, 1994, a memo was issued to respondent No. 2 with regard to her unauthorized absence. It is the case of the respondent No. 2 that said memo was never received by her. Therefore, on 6th June, 1994 a second memo was issued to respondent No. 2 with regard to several deficiencies in her functioning and the respondent No. 2 was offered an opportunity to submit her responses to the same. By communication dated 7th June, 1994, the respondent No. 2 accepted the charges levelled against her but assured rectification in the future. By notice dated 16th August, 1994. The services of the respondent No. 2 were terminated w.e.f. 16th September, 1994 after school hours. On 17th August, 1994, the respondent No. 2 addressed detailed representation protesting against said termination. Therein the respondent No. 2 also retracted her previous response dated 7th June, 1994. On 29th August, 1994 the petitioner No. 2 communicated to the respondent No. 2 adverse remarks in the confidential report for the year 1993-94. The remark is to the effect that the performance of respondent No. 2 is not satisfactory and that she is not ready to accept her faults though brought to her notice.

3. Respondent No. 2 instituted an appeal under Section 9 of The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service Regulation Act, 1977 (“said Act”) and the School Tribunal by the impugned order dated 8th January, 1997 has allowed the same. Hence the present petition.

4. Mr. Rege, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No. 2 was a probationer and her services came to be terminated as her work was found to be unsatisfactory. The termination order is not stigmatic but simpliciter. The School Tribunal has incorrectly held that there was any breach of Rule 15 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (“said rules”). In particular, Mr. Rege pointed out that the petitioners in compliance with the provisions of Rule 15(3) had communicated adverse remarks in the confidential report of the respondent No. 2, before the end of August, 1994 and on the date of said communication, the respondent No. 2 was very much in service, since the termination was to take effect on 16th September, 1994. The respondent No. 2 chose to address no representation against the adverse remarks so communicated on 29th August, 1994. Accordingly, there was no obligation to revisit the adverse remarks in the confidential report. The performance of the respondent No. 2 was objectively assessed and the record of her assessment was duly maintained. For all these reasons Mr. Rege submitted that the impugned order made by the School Tribunal warrants interference.

5. On the other hand, Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 defended the impugned order by submitting that the termination was in gross breach of the provisions contained in Rule 15 of the said rules. The learned counsel submitted that in present case the termination notice issued on 16th August, 1994 and so called adverse remarks were communicated later i.e. on 29th August, 1994. Besides, the adverse remarks were not written or communicated in prescribed Form under 'Schedule G'. Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Vinayak Vidhyadayini Trust & Anr. vs. Aruna T. Prabhu & Ors. 2011 (1) Mh. L.J. 550, learned counsel submitted that Ru