Back
1977 Supreme(Ker) 248
Judges : V.P.GOPALAN NAMBIYAR,K.K.NARENDRAN
MANAGER, LOYOLA COLLEGE - Appellant
Versus
UNIVERSITY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - Respondent
Case No : C. R. P. No. 2431, 2927 of 1977
Decided On : 11/11/1977
Advocates Appeared :
M. I.Oseph; For Petitioner M. P. R. Nair; M. K. Chandramohan Das; T. G. Latha; For Petitioner Government Pleader; For Respondents
The main legal point established in the judgment is that termination during the probation period is permissible only if it takes effect at the normal expiry of the term and not earlier, emphasizing the importance of giving a probationer a fair opportunity to prove their suitability before termination.
Headnote:
Probation - Termination of Probation - Kerala University Act, 1974, Section 59(8) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 59 of the Kerala University Act, 1974, which requires teachers of private colleges to be on probation for a period of one year within a period of two years. The court interpreted the provisions and held that termination during the probation period is permissible only if it takes effect at the normal expiry of the term and not earlier. The court also emphasized the importance of giving a probationer a fair opportunity to prove their suitability before termination.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the termination of the probation of a lecturer at a private college. The lecturer filed an appeal to the University Appellate Tribunal, which directed her reinstatement with a fresh period of probation. The management of the college filed a revision against the reinstatement order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the termination of the probation was lawful and did not offend the provisions of the Act. It held that the Tribunal was wrong in directing the lecturer to restart her probation and dismissed the appeal to the University Appellate Tribunal.
Issues: The issues involved the termination of the lecturer's probation, the interpretation of the provisions of the Kerala University Act, and the authority of the University Appellate Tribunal to direct a fresh period of probation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that termination during the probation period is permissible only if it takes effect at the normal expiry of the term and not earlier. It also highlighted the importance of giving a probationer a fair opportunity to prove their suitability before termination.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition filed by the management, directed the dismissal of the appeal to the University Appellate Tribunal, and dismissed the lecturer's revision petition.
1. These two Revision Petitions arise out of an order passed in Appeal, by the University Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum; CRP. No. 2431 of 1977 being by the Manager of a private College, The Loyola College of Social Science, Sreekariyam, and CRP No. 2927 of 1977 being by a Lecturer of the said College. The controversy relates to the termination of the term of probation of the Lecturer in question, who is the second respondent in CRP No 2431 of 1977, and the petitioner in the other CRP. Against the order terminating her probation, she filed an appeal to the Tribunal, which was allowed, setting aside the order of termination and directing her reinstatement in service. While doing so, the Tribunal directed that in view of the requirement that the probationary period must be one year within a period of two years, and the impossibility of complying with this requirement on the proved facts, she will have to be on a fresh period of probation. Against the order of the Tribunal allowing the Lecturer's appeal and directing her reinstatement, the management of the College has preferred its revision; and against that portion of the order holding that the Lecturer will be on fresh probation for a period of one year, the Lecturer concerned has preferred the other CRP. No. 1431 of 1977.
The 2nd respondent herein, namely, the Lecturer in question, was appointed on 171974. According to the terms of the statute to be referred to presently, she had to be on probation for a period of one year. On 28-4-1975, Management issued a show-cause notice for termination of her probation. On 6-5-1975 she showed cause. On 28-6-1975 the Management discharged her with effect from 30-6-1975. The date from which the discharge was to take effect be it noted marks the expiry of her normal period of probation. Against the termination of her probation, the 2nd respondent preferred Appeal No. 3 of 1975 before the University Appellate Tribunal. She also preferred O. P. No. 3113 of 1975 questioning her discharge. The Original Petition was dismissed on the ground that the appeal was pending. The Appeal to the Tribunal was dismissed in the first instance. I.A. No. 1581976 for review was allowed. The appeal was re-heard; and after re-hearing, was allowed directing reinstatement with a direction for fresh probation.
2. A preliminary objection was taken by counsel for the 2nd respondent that the revision is not maintainable. The revision is preferred under S.60(9) of the Kerala University Act, 1974, which reads:
"60. Conditions of service of teachers of private colleges.
(9) Any person who objects to an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal under sub-section (7) may, within sixty days from the date on which a copy of such order is served on him, prefer a petition accompanied by court fee stamps of the value of ten rupees to the High Court on the ground that the Appellate Tribunal has either decided erroneously, or failed to decide, any question of law.
And sub-section (7) reads:
(7) Any teacher aggrieved by an order passed after the commencement of this Act in any disciplinary proceeding taken against him may, within sixty days from the date on which a copy of such order is served on him or within sixty days after the Appellate Tribunal has been constituted under this Act, whichever period expires later, appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, and after such further enquiry as may be necessary, pass such order thereon as it may deem fit, including an order of reinstatement of the teacher concerned.
Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal presented after the expiration of the said period if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the said period."
The above provisions have to be coupled with S.59 (8) of the Act, which is as follows:
"59. Probation.
(8) A probationer who is discharged or reverted under sub-s. (6) or who is
