Bombay High Court

Daruwala Education Soc. & Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 19 September, 2017

Bench: A.A. Sayed

k                                                1/20                            wp 5906.03 as.doc

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                     WRIT PETITION NO.5906 OF 2003

1)        Daruwala Education Society
          30/A, Gultekadi, Pune - 411 037
          By its Chairman:
          Mr. Abbasbhai Chandhbai Daruwala,
          Age about 67 years, Occ. Business,
          Residing at 30/A,Gultekadi,
          Pune 411 037.
          Cresent High School, 304,
          Gultekadi, Pune 411 037.

2)        Head Mistress,
          Mrs. M. Abbas,
          Age about 64 years, Occ. Service,
          Residing at 37, Gultekadi,
          Pune - 411 037.                                                     ... Petitioners
                   vs.
1)        The State of Maharashtra

2)        Education Officer,
          Pune Zilla Parishad,
          Chavan Bhavan, Mangalwar Peth,
          Pune - 411 011.

3)        Shri Ramesh Kisanrao Lavande,
          Age about 32 years, Occ.Service,
          Residing at 774, Dhankawadi,
          Pune - 411 043.                                                     ... Respondents

Mr. V.K. Bodhare for the Petitioners.
Mr. S.V. Pitre for the Respondent No.3.

                                                 Coram : A.A.Sayed, J.
                                                 Date : 19 September 2017

JUDGMENT :

1 The challenge in this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution is to the judgment and order dated 18 December 2002

passed by the School Tribunal, Pune Region, Pune in an Appeal filed

k 2/20 wp 5906.03 as.doc

by the Respondent No.3/original Appellant under section 9 of the

Maharashtra Employees Private Schools (Conditions of Service)

Regulation Act, 1977 ('MEPS Act' for short) questioning the termination

order dated 6 December 2000 terminating his service as Assistant

Teacher w.e.f. 7 December 2000. By the impugned order the order of

termination was set aside and the Petitioner Management/original

Respondent No.1 was directed to reinstate the Respondent

No.3/original Appellant in service with full back-wages from the date of

termination.

2 The case of the Respondent No.3/original Appellant before the

School Tribunal in the Appeal was as follows:

He was working as an Assistant Teacher with Crescent School

which is run by the Petitioner-Management/original Respondent No.1

and holding qualification of B.A., M.A. and B.Ed. He was initially

appointed with the School on 12 June 1997 and mainly conducting the

activities related to the physical education. He was incharge of and

trained in the activities of the Maharashtra Cadet Corps. He was also

teaching and instructing in the discipline of Physical Education as his

subject. He was not issued any formal order of an appointment but was

issued salary certificates time to time when demanded. He was also

deputed to attend training course for Maharashtra Cadet Corps. He

was continuously working in the School for three years from 12 June

1997 and his services were thus automatically confirmed on completion

k 3/20 wp 5906.03 as.doc

of two academic years i.e. after the expiry of second term in the year

1999. He was issued an appointment order pursuant to his Application

dated 15 June 1997 that he was appointed as teacher with effect from

14 June 1999 on temporary basis upto 30 April 2000. His services were

continuous till the end of second term of the academic year 1999-2000

and he had continuously worked till April 2000 i.e. one complete

academic year after his automatic confirmation in his service. After the

completion of two years service, he was being paid less salary and had

accordingly written to the Education Officer who had taken cognizance

of his letter and who sought an explanation from the Petitioner

Management. In his complaint he has stated that he has received

Rs.1,90,000/- less. The Petitioner Management did not allow him to join

his duty after vacation in the School when it opened on 12 June 2000.

On 19 June 2000 he was reissued an order stating that he was

appointed on probation for a period of two years. The said order was

illegal and void. Considering the fact that he had completed three

years of continuous service, he cannot be said to be on probation as

he was never out of service and he was permanent in service without

any break and the order dated 19 June 2000 is void. The Petitioner

Management was issuing memos after memos to him and was causing

harassment to him on false and fabricated grounds. He had

approached the Police through a Sangh/Organization. He was issued a

letter of allegations under section 36(1) of MEPS Act by the Petitioner

k 4/20 wp 5906.03 as.doc

Management containing 12 different charges which were false and

imaginary. However, no enquiry committee was formed. He has replied

and refuted all the charges. Thereafter, nothing transpired and all of

sudden on 6 December 2000, the Petitioner Management issued an

order of termination to him with effect from 7 December 2000

accompanied by a cheque of Rs.2,805/- being the salary for one

month in lieu of the notice period.

3 Written Statement/Reply was filed by the Petitioner

Management/original Respondent No.1 & 2 before the School Tribunal.

Their case in the Written Statement was as follows:

Respondent No.3/original Appellant was appointed as an

Assistant Teacher to teach Physical Education as well as Hindi to the

higher classes. The Respondent No.3 was B.Ed. (with Physical

Education). The Respondent No.3 was initially appointed as Assistant

Teacher on 12 June 1997. One teacher namely, Smt. Tiwari was

serving as a teacher in the subject of Hindi from 1990 and she had

indicated that she would be proceeding on long leave and therefore,

taking into consideration the Respondent No.3's qualification he came

to be appointed on purely temporary basis from June 1997 in the post

held by her. Smt. Tiwari however tendered resignation in July 1997 and

it came to be accepted by the Petitioner Management by the end of

September 1997. The Respondent No.3 was continued as a purely

k 5/20 wp 5906.03 as.doc

temporary teacher for a period of one academic year. Mr. Patel

Shehzada Abbas was serving as a physical teacher in the School since

11 August 1990 and had informed the Petitioner Management that he

would proceed on long leave and therefore, the Respondent No.3 was

again appointed on purely temporary basis in two subjects i.e. Physical

Education as well as Hindi. As Mr. Patel Abbas remained absent from

the School from 6 July 1998 and when called upon to resume his

duties, however, he expressed his inability to resume. Mr. Patel Abbas

thereafter tendered his resignation and he was relieved from 31

October 1998. The Respondent No.3 was appointed as temporary

teacher for the academic year 1997-98 in the post held by Smt. Tiwari

and in the year 1998-99 on the post held by Mr. Patel. Hence, the

appointment of the Respondent No.3 was purely temporary. Thereafter,

the Respondent No.3 was again appointed on purely temporary basis

for the year 1999-2000. The Respondent No.3 was appointed on

probation on 19 June 2000 by an appointment order of even date. It

was falsely suggested that Respondent No.3 was not paid the

prescribed salary. Without prejudice to the other contentions the

Management was ready to give one more opportunity by appointing

him on probation for a period of two years. The Respondent No.3

thereafter withdrew his complaints with Sanghatana/Union i.e.

Bharatiya Bahujan Alpasankhyank Shikshak Maha Sanghatana. The

Respondent No.3 was accordingly appointed on probation for two

k 6/20 wp 5906.03 as.doc

years from 19 June 2000. The Respondent No.3 was given memos or

warnings to which he responded in a vicious manner. He had

committed misconduct by remaining absent on the occasion of 15

August 2000 and 15 August 1999 thus avoiding to hold proper flag

hoisting ceremony which is the responsibility as a teacher in Physical

Education. He sent false certificates of his sickness and sought leave.

He also made false complaint against the Petitioner Management with

the police as well as with the Sanghatana. His behaviour with the Head

Mistress and lady co-teachers was not sober for which he was issued

memos and warnings from time to time and ultimately he was given

'letter of allegations' considering his behavior. His response to the letter

of allegations was also vicious in nature and under these

circumstances, the Petitioner Management had no option but to

terminate the services of the Respondent No.3. The Respondent No.3

was never in the permanent service as alleged. The Respondent No.3

was on probation and the order of termination was given to him and he

was paid one month's salary in lieu of notice period.

4 After hearing the parties, the School Tribunal passed the

impugned order as stated in paragraph 1 above. Hence, the present

Petition by the Petitioner Management.

5 I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner Management

and the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3 teacher.

 k                                                7/20                            wp 5906.03 as.doc

6          Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Management has placed

reliance on the following judgments:

(i)        Hindustan Education Society and Anr. vs. Sk. Kaleem Sk. Gulam

           Nabi and Ors., (1997) 5 SCC 152;

(ii)       Ramkrishna Chauhan and Ors. vs. Seth D.M. High School and

           Ors., 2013 (30) All MR 1.



7          Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3 has relied upon the

following judgments:

i)         Arvind Shamshabd Ojha                        vs. Saraswati Education Society,

           Thane and others, 2010 (3) Mh.L.J. 945;

ii)        Ramnath Govind Sonavane vs. Secretary, Janata Shikshan

Prasarak Mandal Chandanpuri & others, 2001 (Supp. 2)

Bom.C.R. 203;

iii) V.P. Ahuja vs. State of Punjab, 2000 (3) SCC 239;

iv) Dipti Prakash Benerjee vs. Satvendra Nath Bose National Centre

For Basic Sciences, Calcutta, 1999 (3) SCC 60.

8 It is an admitted position that the Respondent No.3 teacher was

appointed on probation by the Petitioner Management vide

appointment order dated 19 June 2000. Prior thereto, though the

Respondent No.3 teacher was serving the School from 12 June 1997,

his appointment can only be said to be on temporary basis. The

Petitioner Management has produced the prior appointment orders of

k 8/20 wp 5906.03 as.doc

Respondent No.3 teacher dated 16 June 1997, 8 June 1998 and 14

June 1999 which show that the appointment of the Respondent No.3

teacher was only for a fixed period i.e. till the end of the academic year.

Though the Respondent No.3 teacher claims that he was not issued

earlier appointment orders, he has admitted in his Appeal that his

appointment order for the period 14 June 1999 to 30 April 2000 stated

that his appointment was on temporary basis. The Respondent No.3

teacher, however, did not make any grievance about his appointment

being made on temporary basis for the said period viz. 14 June 2000 to

30 April 2000. As a matter of fact, he did not raise any grievance even

about the subsequent appointment order dated 19 June 2000 whereby

he was appointed on probation for two years, till he was terminated

w.e.f. 7 December 2000, whereafter he filed the Appeal before the

School Tribunal challenging his termination.

9 In Hindustan Education Society and Anr. vs. Sk.Kaleem

SK.Gulam Nabi and Ors. (1997) 5 SC 152, the Supreme Court has

considered section 5 of the MEPS Act. In paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, the

Supreme Court held as follows:

"4. Thus, it could be seen that the appointment of the first respondent was only a temporary appointment against a clear vacancy ... .

5. In view of the above and the order of appointment, the appointment of the respondent was purely temporary for a limited period. Obviously, the approval given by the competent authority was for that temporary appointment. As regards permanent

k 9/20 wp 5906.03 as.doc

appointments, they are regulated by sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 5 of the Act according to which the Management shall, as soon as possible, fill up, in the manner prescribed, every permanent vacancy in a private school by appointment of a person duly qualified to fill in such vacancy. Every person of two years subject to the provisions of sub-section (4) and (5). He shall, on completion of the probation of period of two years, be confirmed.

i. Under these circumstances, the appointment of the respondent cannot be considered to be a permanent appointment. As a consequence, the direction issued by the High Court in the impugned judgment dated July 31, 1996 in Writ Petition No.5821/95 that he was regularly appointed is clearly illegal and cannot be sustained."

10 In Ramkrishna Chauhan vs. Seth D.M. High School (supra),

the Full Bench of this Court has also dealt with the very issue involved

in the present Petition. The Full Bench was constituted by the Hon'ble

the Chief Justice upon a reference being made by a learned Single

Judge in view of the divergent opinions of different Benches of this

Court. The Full Bench of this Court in its judgment in paragraph 2 has

reproduced the question framed by the learned Single Judge which

reads as follows:

"Would it be open to the School Tribunal to hold that an employee would be deemed to be on probation within the meaning of Section 5(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 on the ground that the appointment was made in a clear and permanent vacancy, notwithstanding the fact that the letter of appointment specifically stipulated that the appointment has been made in a temporary capacity?"

k 10/20 wp 5906.03 as.doc

The Full Bench answered the question in paragraph 28 which reads

thus:

"Accordingly, we are inclined to answer the issue in the negative. We hold that it is not open to the School Tribunal to assume as of fact that the appointment made against a clear and permanent vacancy is deemed to be on probation, within the meaning of section 5(2) of the Act. The School Tribunal cannot disregard the terms and conditions of the letter of appointment, if it expressly provides that the appointment is on temporary basis, for a limited term."

In paragraph 18, the Full Bench has observed:

i.A priori, we have no hesitation in taking the view that neither section 5(1) nor 5(2) of the Act can be construed as forbidding the Management from making an appointment on contractual or temporary basis for a limited duration against a permanent vacancy until a suitable candidate is selected. Further, there is nothing in these provisions to indicate that every appointment made by the Management, in relation to a permanent vacancy, must be deemed to have been made on probation for a period of two years. There is no such legal fiction unlike in the case of a person appointed "on probation" for a period of two years, is deemed to have been confirmed, upon completion of that period. In other words, the parties would be bound by the terms and conditions stated in the letter of appointment, as there can be no presumption of appointment having been made "on probation" unless expressly stated in the appointment letter itself."

In arriving at its conclusion, the Full Bench observed that it was bound

by the exposition of the Apex Court in Hindustan Education Society.

11 The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pramod Satuppa

Oulkar vs. The Kini Karyat Shikshan Mandal and others, SCC

k 11/20 wp 5906.03 as.doc

OnLine Bom 9421 (Letters Patent Appeal No. 340 of 2007, decided on

August 22, 2016) has held in paragraph 16 as follows:

"16. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ramkrishna Chauhan (supra) has also clearly held that the terms and conditions of the letter of appointment are binding on the candidate and the Tribunal cannot presume that the appointment was made on probation. The contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that section 3 read with section 5 is applicable is without any substance because the said section is in respect of appointment which is made on probation...".

12 In view of the exposition of law in the aforesaid cases, the

contention of the Respondent No.3 teacher that he was deemed to be

permanent by virtue of his completing three years of service, even prior

to being issued the appointment order dated 19 June 2000 (by which

he was appointed on probation) cannot be accepted since he was

appointed only on temporary basis prior thereto.

13 It is an admitted position that the Respondent No.3 teacher was

appointed on probation by appointment order dated 19 June 2000. The

Respondent No.3 teacher was thus a probationer when his services

came to be terminated w.e.f. 7 December 2000 vide termination order

dated 6 December 2000.

14 The provisions governing a probationer are found in section 5 of

the MEPS Act and Rules 14 and 15 of MEPS Rules. Section 5 of the

MEPS Act and as it then stood and Rules 14 and 15 of the MEPS

Rules, read as under:

k 12/20 wp 5906.03 as.doc

"5 Certain obligations of Management of private schools:

(1) ... ... ...

(2) Every person appointed to fill a permanent vacancy shall be on probation for a period of two years. Subject to the provisions of sub- section (4) and (5), he shall on completion of this probation period of two years, be deemed to have been confirmed.

(3) If in the opinion of the Management, the work or behaviour of any probationer during the period of his probation, is not satisfactory, the Management may terminate his services at any time during the said period after giving him one month's notice or salary of one month in lieu of notice.

        (4)        ...         ...        ...
        (4A)       ...         ...        ...
        (5)        ...         ...        ...


        Rule 14. Assessment of employees work.
        (1)        At the beginning of each term, the teacher shall prepare the

plan of his academic programme and at the end of the academic year, prepare a report of the work done by him and submit it to the Head.

(2) Each employee on the teaching and non-teaching staff of a school shall submit the report of self-assessment in the respective Form in Schedule "G" within one month after the end of a year.

Rule 15. Writing of confidential reports etc. (1) The confidential reports shall be written annually in the respective Form in Schedule "G". The reporting authorities in respect of the employees and the Head shall be the Head and the Chief Executive Officer respectively. Confidential reports shall be written in respect of the employee or the Head who had worked for six months or more during an academic year commencing from June. If the Head or a teacher is the Secretary of the Management the confidential report in his respect shall be written by the President of the Management.

 k                                                13/20                            wp 5906.03 as.doc


        (2)        The confidential reports so written in respect of the employees

and the Head shall be reviewed by the Chief Executive Officer and the President of the Management, respectively. The confidential report of the Head or a teacher written by the President shall be reviewed by the Managing Committee.

(3) The respective reporting authority shall arrange to communicate confidentially in writing adverse remarks, if any, to the concerned employee or the Head, as the case may be, before the end of August every year.

(4) Representation, if any, from any employee against the adverse remark communicated to him in accordance with sub-rule (3) above shall be decided by the School Committee. Similar representation, if any, from the Head shall be decided by the Managing Committee.

(5) Failure to write and maintain confidential reports and to communicate adverse remarks to the employees within the period prescribed in sub-rule (3) shall have the effect that the work of the employee concerned was satisfactory during the period under report.

(6) Performance of an employee appointed on probation shall be objectively assessed by the Head during the period of his probation and a record of such assessment shall be maintained."

15. In Vinayak Vidhyadayini Trust through its Secretary/Trustee

& Anr. vs. Aruna T. Prabhu & Ors., 2010(4) Bom.C.R. 543, the

Division Bench of this Court considered the aforesaid provisions of the

MEPS Act and Rules. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court in

the case of Progressive Education Society v. Rajendra, (2008) 3

SCC 310, the Division Bench in paragraphs 13 and 15 held as follows:

k 14/20 wp 5906.03 as.doc

"13 ... Thus, the appointment on probation and the termination of the service of the probationer are governed by the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 5 of the MEPS Act. In addition, Rules 14 and 15 of the MEPS Rules, 1981, have elaborately set out the procedure for the assessment of the probationer's performance and writing of his confidential reports. When a special statute like the MEPS Act has provided for a specific procedure to be followed while terminating the employment of a probationer on the ground of unsatisfactory performance, the said procedure is mandatory and non-compliance thereof would vitiate the order of termination and the School Tribunal will be fully justified to interfere with the same and set it aside by directing reinstatement of the appointee/appellant.

15. Under Schedule "G" to the MEPS Rules, various forms have been set out and are required to be filled in for the teaching staff and they are, (1) Self-Assessment Form, (2) Confidential Report Form and (3) Reviewing Authority Remarks Form. Under sub-rule (1) of Rule 15, confidential reports shall be written in respect of the teacher who had worked for six months or more during an academic year commencing from June and the confidential reports so written shall be reviewed by the Chief Executive Officer/President of the management. Whereas the confidential reports of the Head or a teacher written by the President shall be reviewed by the Managing Committee as per sub-rule (2). The respective reporting authority shall arrange to communicate confidentially in writing adverse remarks, if any, to the concerned employee before the end of August every year and representation, if any, from any employee against the adverse remarks communicated to him, shall be decided by the School Committee or the Managing Committee, as the case may be, as per the combine reading of sub rules (3) and (4). As per sub-rule (5) failure to write and maintain confidential reports and to communicate adverse remarks to the employee within the period prescribed in sub-rule (3) shall have the effect that the work of the employee concerned was satisfactory during the period under report. Further, as per sub rule (6) of Rule 15, performance of an employee appointed on probation

k 15/20 wp 5906.03 as.doc

shall be objectively assessed by the Head during the period of his probation and a record of such assessment shall be maintained.

The Supreme Court in the case of Progressive Education Society v. Rajendra, 2008(2) Mh.L.J. (SC) 715 : (2008) 3 SCC 310 : AIR 2008 SC 1442 had an occasion to consider the scheme of section 5(3) of the MEPS Act and Rule 15 of the MEPS Rules. It held that while Rules 14 and 15 of the MEPS Rules cannot override the provisions of section 5(3) of the MEPS Act, it has to be said that the requirements of sub-rule (6) of Rule 15 would be a factor which the school management has to take into consideration while exercising the powers which it undoubtedly has and is recognized under the said section. It further held that there ought to be sufficient material to be brought by the school management before the Tribunal so as to support the order of termination passed at the end of the probationary period and such record must also inspire confidence being bona fide. Such material cannot be cooked up material and it must be genuine confidential records maintained from time to time and communicated to the teacher. It is also clear from sub-rule (5) of Rule 15 of the MEPS Rules, that failure to write and maintain confidential reports and to communicate adverse remarks to the employee within the period prescribed in sub-rule (3) shall have the effect that the work of the employee concerned was satisfactory during the period under report. In the instant case, there was nothing brought on record to show that in the prescribed form, the confidential reports in respect of respondent No.1 were written and adverse remarks were communicated to her so as to provide her an opportunity to submit her representation against the adverse remarks. In any case, the show cause notice dated 23-6- 1995 would not amount to compliance of sub-rules (1) to (5) of Rule 15 of the MEPS Rules."

16. A learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Anjuman-E-

Taleem and anr. v/s. State of Maharashtra and anr., 2015 (3) MhLJ

k 16/20 wp 5906.03 as.doc

98, following the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench, held in

paragraphs 9 to 12 as follows:

"9. The scheme of Rule 15 of the said Rules is that confidential reports shall be written in respect of the employee or the Head who had worked for six months or more during an academic year com mencing from June and had to be written annually by the head of the school and reviewed by the Chief Executive Officer.

10. The sub-rule (3) of Rule 15 provides that the respective reporting authority shall arrange to communicate confidentially in writing adverse remarks, if any, to the concerned employee or the Head, as the case may be, before the end of August every year. The sub-rule (4) provides that representation, if any, from any employee against the adverse remark communicated to him in accordance with sub-rule (3) above shall be decided by the School Committee. Sub rule (5) of Rule 15 provides that failure to write and maintain confidential reports and to communicate adverse remarks to the employees within the period prescribed in sub-rule (3) shall have the effect that the work of the employee concerned was satisfactory during the period under report. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 15 finally provides that the performance of an employee appointed on probation shall be objectively assessed by the Head during the period of his probation and a record of such assessment shall be maintained.

11. The entire object of providing such detailed procedure as aforesaid, is to ensure that there is no arbitrary power vested in the appointing authority to do away with the services of the probationer.

Normally, the question as to whether or not services of probationer are satisfactory, largely depend upon the subjective satisfaction of appointing authority. Such subjective satisfaction however, is by no means unfettered or unbridled lest, the same would lead to arbitrariness. The provisions in the rules, therefore provide for an objective assessment of service records coupled with maintenance of records of such assessment. Besides, with a view to introduce the element of fairness as well as natural justice, the rules provides that adverse remarks in the confidential report have to be communicated

k 17/20 wp 5906.03 as.doc

to employee concerned and the employee concerned has to be offered an opportunity to make representation against the same before such adverse remarks are taken into consideration for the purpose of arriving at satisfaction that the services of the employee during probation, were unsatisfactory.

12. It is well settled position in law that the purpose for communication of adverse remarks is two fold. Firstly, such communication is to enable the employee concerned to improve his/her performance. Secondly, to enable the employee concerned to represent against the adverse remarks and consequently satisfy the reviewing authority that such adverse remarks ought not to have been made or were not justified".

17. In the present case, nothing was placed on record by the

Petitioner Management before the School Tribunal to show that any

Confidential Reports in respect of the Respondent No.3 teacher were

maintained or that any adverse remarks were communicated to him to

provide an opportunity to him to make representation against the

adverse remarks. In these circumstances, in view of the law laid down

by the Division Bench of this Court and followed by the Single Judge of

this Court as discussed above, the work of the Respondent No.3

teacher would have to be treated as satisfactory and the order of

termination dated 6 December 2000 was unsustainable. To that extent,

the School Tribunal has rightly set aside the order of termination of the

Respondent No.3 though for different reasons which I am not in

agreement with, having regard to the position of law of employment on

temporary basis as discussed earlier.

 k                                                18/20                            wp 5906.03 as.doc

18       Section 11 of the MEPS Act lays down the powers of Tribunal to

give appropriate reliefs and directions. It interalia provides that where

the Tribunal, after giving reasonable opportunity to both parties of being

heard, decides in any Appeal that the order of dismissal, removal,

otherwise termination of service or reduction in rank was in

contravention of any law (including any rules made under this Act),

contract or conditions of service for the time being in force or was

otherwise illegal or improper, the Tribunal may set aside the order of

the Management, partially or wholly, and direct the Management inter

alia to reinstate the employee, restore his rank, give arrears of

emoluments or award lesser punishment. Where it is decided not to

reinstate the employee or in any other appropriate case, to give to the

employee twelve months salary (pay and allowances, if any) if he has

been in the service of the school for ten years or more and six months

salary (pay and allowances, if any) if he has been in service of the

school for less than ten years, by way of compensation, regard being

had to loss of employment and possibility of getting or not getting

suitable employment thereafter, as it may specify or to give such other

reliefs to the employee and to observe such other conditions as it may

specify, having regard to the circumstances of the case.

19 Having regard to the above provision, in the facts and

circumstances of the present case, since the Respondent No.3 has

k 19/20 wp 5906.03 as.doc

been in service for only for 5½ months as a probationer and

considering the passage of time (17½ years) for which the Respondent

No.3 has not been in service in the School (since the operation of the

impugned order was stayed by this Court), in my opinion, it would not

be appropriate to grant reinstatement. In my view, interest of justice

would be served if the Petitioner Management is directed to pay to the

Respondent No.3 six months salary (present scale) as compensation.

Since the order of the School Tribunal to the extent of setting aside the

order of termination is not disturbed, the contention of Respondent

No.3 that there ought to have been an inquiry does not require to be

gone into. The judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the

Respondent No.3 would be of no avail for the same reason.

20 In light of the above discussion, I pass the following order:

ORDER

i) The Petitioner Management is directed to pay the

Respondent No.3 six months salary (present scale) as

compensation within a period of eight weeks from today in

lieu of reinstatement.

ii) The impugned order of the School Tribunal shall stand

modified accordingly.

          k                                                20/20                            wp 5906.03 as.doc

                   iii)    Rule is made partly absolute in the aforesaid terms. The