Shreerang Education Society And ... vs Smt. Janhavi Jayesh Gaikwad And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1617 Bom

         Digitally
         signed by
         MEERA                                              1/3                             202-LPA-61-10.doc
MEERA    MAHESH
MAHESH   JADHAV
JADHAV   Date:
         2023.02.17
         12:28:23
         +0530                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                          LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.61 OF 2010
                                                           IN
                                             WRIT PETITION NO.8025 OF 2008

                      Shreerang Education Society & Anr                   ....Appellants
                           V/s.
                      Janhavi Jayesh Gaikwad & Anr                        ...Respondents

                                                              ----

Mr. S. V. Pitre for Appellants.

Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar for Respondent No.1 Mr. A. I. Patel, Addl. G. P. a/w Mr. K. S. Thorat, AGP for State.

----

CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & RAJESH S. PATIL JJ DATED : 16th FEBRUARY 2023

P.C. :

1 The appeal is impugning an order dated 5 th January 2010 allowing

Writ Petition No.8025 of 2008 that was filed by respondent no.1. In that

petition, respondent no.1 had impugned an order dated 17 th September

2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Additional School Tribunal, dismissing

her appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools

(Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (the said Act).

2 The relationship between appellants and respondent no.1 has been

turbulent from the time respondent no.1 was appointed on probation as an

Assistant Teacher. Respondent no.1 was appointed on probation w.e.f., 24 th

February 2006 in appellants' school. Respondent no.1 was initially served

with an order of termination dated 22 nd January 2007. The service of

Meera Jadhav 2/3 202-LPA-61-10.doc

respondent no.1 was terminated pursuant to a notice dated 22 nd January

2007 to be effected on 22nd February 2007. Respondent no.1 challenged

that order of termination before the Presiding Officer, Additional School

Tribunal, Navi Mumbai, which was allowed. Appellants preferred a writ

petition no.5332 of 2007 in this court, which writ petition was dismissed by

an order dated 30th August 2007.

3 Thereafter, by a letter dated 30 th January 2008, the services of

respondent no.1 was once again terminated. The period of probation was

to come to an end on 22nd February 2008. Respondent no.1 challenged the

said order of termination before the School Tribunal. The School Tribunal

dismissed the appeal of respondent no.1 by an order dated 27 th March 2008.

That order was challenged by respondent no.1 by way of a writ petition

no.3800 of 2008. By judgment and order dated 23 rd July 2008, order of the

School Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remanded. The School

Tribunal once again upheld the order of termination. That is how Writ

Petition No.8025 of 2008 in which, this appeal is preferred, came to be filed.

4 The reason why the Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition

was because Rule 15(6) of the said Act and the Rules 1981, provides for

performance of an employee appointed on probation shall be objectively

assessed by the head during the period of probation and a record of such

assessment shall be maintained. The Learned Single Judge rightly held that

appellants had only considered the performance of respondent no.1 for the

period 2006 to 2007 based on which, the impugned action was taken but

Meera Jadhav 3/3 202-LPA-61-10.doc

did not objectively assess the performance of respondent no.1 for the period

upto 31st January 2008 when the letter of termination was issued. The

letter of termination reads as under:

"Your performance thereafter is not satisfactory and you have been informed vide letter dated 30.07.2007 stating in detail the facts pertaining to your non-satisfactory performance and adverse entries to your Confidential Report 2006-2007 and in that behalf you have given false and frivolous reply dated 03-08.2007. There after also parents of the students of Std Xth of S.V.E.M. have lodged the complaint against you and Head Mistress of SVEM was informed on 22.08.2007 and finally on 26.11.2007 Head Mistress of SVEM has written letter to the under signed."

5 Though letter of termination refers to the conduct of respondent no.1

post 2006-2007, the confidential report / objective assessment by the Head

Mistress for the period thereafter upto the date of termination, is not

reflected in the order of termination. In fact, the letter dated 30 th July 2007

referred in the above quoted paragraph has been set aside by the High Court

in its order of 30th August 2007.

6 In the circumstances, we find no error in the impugned order. Appeal

dismissed with costs in the sum of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to respondent

no.1 within four weeks from today. Mr. Pitre prays for stay of the order.

Prayer refused. This is because it is the question of livelihood of a person,

who has been out of job since last 15 years and unfortunately a teacher has

been made to go through 3 rounds of litigation to stay in the job.

(RAJESH S PATIL, J.)                                          (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)



Meera Jadhav