Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 302

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Somasekhar Sundaresan, J
Gavit Gulabsing Suka – Appellant
Versus
Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Sanstha (Kolhapur) – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 16771 OF 2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sugandh Deshmukh a/w. Aniket Kanawade, Bhushan G. Deshmukh, Vaibhav Thorave, Aryan Deshmukh, Irvin D’Souza & Karishma Shinde
For the Respondents:Narendra V. Bandiwadekar, Senior Advocate a/w. Vinayak R. Kumbhar, Rajendra Khaire & Aniket Phapale i/b. Ashwini Bandiwade, M. S. Srivastava, AGP

Management may terminate a probationary teacher's services during probation upon forming a reasonable non-arbitrary opinion of unsatisfactory behaviour based on admitted inappropriate conduct, without departmental enquiry or natural justice requirements applicable to permanent employees.

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - Sections 5(2), 5(2A) and 5(3) - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 - Rule 15(6) - Termination of probationary assistant teacher - Three-year probation period for shikshan sevak - Deemed confirmation on completion of probation - Management entitled to terminate services during probation upon forming reasonable opinion that behaviour is unsatisfactory - Termination permissible with one month’s notice or salary in lieu thereof - No full departmental enquiry required where termination is non-stigmatic. (Paras 8-10, 19-23)

(B) Natural justice - Applicability to probationers - Principles do not mandate show-cause notice or detailed enquiry for non-punitive termination based on admitted external conduct - Performance appraisal requirement limited to classroom work and does not cover inappropriate electronic contact with students outside workplace. (Paras 12-14, 24-28)

(C) Writ jurisdiction - Scope - Court declines interference where objective facts enable management to adopt zero-tolerance approach and form reasonable non-arbitrary opinion for termination of probationer.

Facts of the case:
Petitioner engaged as probationary assistant teacher for three years with probation ending on a specified date. Complaints received from parents alleging electronic messaging contact with a student. Petitioner furnished written apology admitting such contact on the same day. Management terminated engagement before expiry of probation, making payment in lieu of notice. School tribunal dismissed appeal against termination.

Findings of Court:
Management formed reasonable opinion based on unretracted admission of inappropriate conduct. No stigma attached as termination invoked statutory provision without fact-finding enquiry. Classroom performance not in issue. Petitioner had sufficient time to retract apology but did not. Distinguished from cases involving vague stigmatic allegations such as mental instability.

Issues: Whether termination of probationary teacher required compliance with natural justice including show-cause notice and departmental enquiry; Whether petitioner became deemed permanent employee requiring protections applicable to confirmed teachers; Whether management’s opinion on unsatisfactory behaviour was reasonable and non-arbitrary.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory provision enables management to terminate probation at any time upon forming reasonable opinion of unsatisfactory behaviour, supported by admission of inappropriate contact with student; no requirement to treat probationer on par with permanent employee or conduct full enquiry where action is non-stigmatic and objective material justifies zero-tolerance decision; performance record rule inapplicable to external conduct.

Result: Petition dismissed without interference with impugned tribunal order.

Table of Content
1. writ petition taken up for final hearing by consent. (Para 1)
2. factual background of probationary teacher's termination over messaging complaints. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
3. arguments on violation of natural justice and statutory deemed permanency. (Para 6)
4. statutory probation rules and reasonable opinion requirement under meps act. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
5. zero-tolerance termination valid on admitted unsatisfactory behaviour of probationer. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
6. precedents distinguished; misconduct allegations require proven foundation for punitive action. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
7. termination power exercisable during full probation period before deemed confirmation. (Para 38 , 39)
8. petition dismissed; impugned termination order upheld without interference. (Para 40 , 41)

ORAL JUDGEMENT:

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, taken up for final hearing.

Context and Factual Background:

2. This Petition impugns a Judgement passed by the Learned School Tribunal, Mumbai in Appeal No. 59 of 2023 dated August 20, 2024 (“Impugned Judgement”) dismissing the Appeal filed by the Petitioner against the termination of the Petitioner from the services of Respondent No.1 (for convenience, “Management”) and Respondent No. 2 (for convenience, “School”).

3. The Petitioner was engaged as a probationary Assistant Teacher (shikshan sevak) on February 29, 2020 in the School, for a period of three years. The probation period was meant to end on February 28, 2023.

4. On December 23, 2022, complaints were received by the School from parents of a certain girl student alleging that the Petitioner was in instant messaging contact with the student, and that the exchange of messages constituted harassment. The Petitioner issued a written apology to the Principal of the School on the same day, confirming his electronic contact with the student. It appears that the School Committee also issued a communication to the School on the same day drawing the attention of the School management to the seriousness of the complaints made about the Petitioner.

5. The Principal filed a report of the said complaints to the Management on December 28, 2022. Local unrest is said to have occurred with a mob having gathered over the matter, necessitating the Principal having to intercede and save the Petitioner. Eventually, on January 31, 2023, the probationary engagement of the Petitioner was terminated with effect from February 1, 2023, and the Petitioner was given payment in lieu of one month’s notice.

6. Against this backdrop, the challenge in this Petition is mounted on the following grounds:-

A] The Petitioner contends that no enquiry entailing a proper issuance of show-cause notice and the provision of material to give him a chance to explain himself, was ever provided before his termination, and this constitutes a violation of natural justice;

B] The Petitioner, by operation of law, became a permanent employee before the notice period would potentially expire, and therefore, the law governing a probationary employee would not apply to termination of his services; and instead, the process applicable to a permanent teacher should have been applied to him.

Analysis and Findings:

7. I have heard Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh, Learned Advocate on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. Narendra Bandiwadekar, Learned Advocate on behalf of the Respondent School and Management and the Learned AGP on behalf of the State. With their assistance, I have examined the record.

Legal Provisions:

8. The following extracts from the provisions of Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (“MEPS Act”) are noteworthy:

5. (1) The Management shall, as soon as possible, fill in, in the manner prescribed, every permanent vacancy in a private school by the appointment of a person duly qualified to fill such vacancy;

Provide

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 302

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAYSomasekhar Sundaresan, JGavit Gulabsing Suka – AppellantVersusSwami Vivekanand Shikshan Sanstha (Kolhapur) – RespondentWRIT PETITION NO. 16771 OF 2024

Management may terminate a probationary teacher's services during probation upon forming a reasonable non-arbitrary opinion of unsatisfactory behaviour based on admitted inappropriate conduct, without departmental enquiry or natural justice requirements applicable to permanent employees.

Cases Referred (1)

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Somasekhar Sundaresan, J
Gavit Gulabsing Suka – Appellant
Versus
Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Sanstha (Kolhapur) – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 16771 OF 2024