1. Heard.

2. Rule.

3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal.

4. Shri Gunale, learned Advocate for the petitioner criticizes the judgment of the School Tribunal dated 10.10.2013. He has raised the following three grounds, which render the impugned judgment perverse:-

(a) the first respondent / employee had abandoned her service,

(b) she was habituated to unauthorized absenteeism, and

(c) her performance was not satisfactory.

5. He submits that the School Tribunal has allowed Appeal No.26 of 2012 filed by the first respondent for challenging her order of termination dated 1.8.2011 on the ground that she was appointed for three years as a probationer w.e.f. 1.8.2008. He further submits that because she was unauthorizedly absent, she was required to be terminated as she had abandoned her service. When her performance was not satisfactory, the employer cannot be compelled to keep such an employee in service.

6. Shri Gunale further submits that, even if the order of reinstatement is to be taken as it is, by the communication dated 24.4.2014, addressed to the Deputy Director of Education, Latur Division, by the Education Officer (S