The central legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory procedure for assessment of the probationer's performance and the consequences of non-compliance, emphasizing the importance of following the specific procedure and the implications of arbitrary exercise of termination power during the probationary period.

S.C. GUPTE, J.

1. This petition challenges an appellate order passed by the Presiding Officer of School Tribunal, Amravati.

2. The short facts of the case may be stated as follows:

The petitioner is a Public Charitable Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, impleaded through its President. The trust run a School known as Panchasheel High School at Nandepara, Tahsil Wani, District – Yavatmal. Respondent No. 2 was appointed as “Shikshan Sevak” in the school run by the trust. The appointment was made by a communication dated 29th April, 2010 and was said to be in pursuance of Government Circular dated 13th October, 2000. The appellant holds qualifications of B.A., B.P. Ed., M.A. and B.Ed. She joined the services of the petitioner-school on the date of her appointment and taught the subjects of Marathi, Hindi, History and Geography alongwith physical education to 8th, 9th and 10th standards of the school. Respondent No. 2 was terminated vide order dated 28th December, 2011 passed by the petitioner trust. This order was challenged by respondent No. 2 by filling an appeal (Appeal No. 01/2012) before the School Tribunal, Amravati. The School Tribunal allowed the application of respondent No. 2 for stay pending hearing and final disposal of the appeal. This interim order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 6033 of 2012. This Court vide its order dated 2nd May, 2013 was pleased to stay the impugned stay order passed by the School Tribunal and direct the School Tribunal to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible. The School Tribunal, thereafter, proceeded to hear the appeal and by its impugned order dated 13th November, 2013, partly allowed the appeal, and quashed and set aside the impugned termination order of 28th December, 2011, directing the petitioner to reinstate respondent No. 2 in her post of “Shikshan Sevak” within a period of 40 days. The reinstatement was with continuity of service but without back wages. This order is challenged by the petitioner in the present petition.

3. It is mainly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 2 was on probation; her services, not having been found satisfactory, were duly terminated by the order of the petitioner trust and such order did not cast any stigma on respondent No. 2 for her future career and being an order simpliciter for termination on account of unsatisfactory services during the period of probation, did not envisage any enquiry. Learned counsel relies on several documents in this behalf including the memos addressed by the headmaster of the school to respondent No. 2. Learned counsel submits that the School Tribunal erred in holding that prior permission of Deputy Director of Education was necessary for termination of respondent No. 2. Learned counsel also submits that the School Tribunal erred in holding that the headmaster of the school did not submit any report regarding unsatisfactory work of respondent No. 2. Learned counsel relies on several judgments of our Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in support of his case that the termination of respondent No. 2 was legal and proper and ought not to have been interfered with by the School Tribunal in the appeal.

4. There is no serious dispute between the parties that though respondent No. 2 was appointed on the basis of the State Government Circular of 13th October, 2000, the appointment itself and all its incidents are governed by the provisions of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act (“Act”). This Court in the case of Shivdutta Education Trust vs. Harishchandra Rajabali Yadav, 2012 (4) All MR 664 has unequivocally held that after the amendment of the Act, the appointment of “Shikshan Sevak” was no longer to be treated as contractual but as a probationary appointment governed by the provisions of the Act and that all contrary provisions concerning such appointment contained in