9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the termination of services of a probationer by a Society running a school, challenge to the termination order under Section 9 of The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, interpretation of Rules 14 and 15 of The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, and the compliance with sub-Rule (6) of Rule 15 of the MEPS Rules, 1981. Termination of Services: The Respondent No.1 was appointed on probation by a Society running a school, and his services were terminated before the completion of the probation period. The Respondent challenged the termination order under Section 9 of The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, contending that his termination was unjustified as his performance was satisfactory, especially in Mathematics where he achieved cent percent results. The School Tribunal found in favor of the Respondent, noting the lack of assessment of his work by the Society as required by Rules 14 and 15 of The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. The Tribunal set aside the termination order and directed the Society to reinstate the Respondent and pay his arrears of salary. Judicial Review: The Society challenged the Tribunal's order before the High Court, which affirmed the Tribunal's decision. The High Court considered the provisions of Section 5(3) of the MEPS Act, Rules 14 and 15, and particularly sub-Rule (6) of Rule 15 of the MEPS Rules, 1981. It emphasized the need for proper assessment of the probationer's work before termination. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's findings, leading to the dismissal of the Society's Writ Petition. Compliance with Rules: The Society argued that it had complied with Rules 14 and 15, including sub-Rule (6) of Rule 15, in terminating the Respondent's services. It contended that the assessment of the Respondent's performance was duly communicated to him, refuting the Respondent's claim of lack of assessment. However, the Respondent and the Respondent No.2's counsel opposed these arguments, highlighting discrepancies in the documents produced by the Society, particularly the Annual Confidential Report. They raised suspicions about the timing and authenticity of the assessment documents. Legal Interpretation: The main issue for determination in the appeal was whether Rules 14 and 15, especially sub-Rule (6) of Rule 15 of the MEPS Rules, 1981, would control the powers of the School Management under Section 5(3) of the MEPS Act. The Court emphasized that while the Rules cannot override the Act, the requirements of sub-Rule (6) of Rule 15 must be considered by the Management before exercising termination powers. The Court found discrepancies in the assessment documents presented by the Society, indicating non-compliance with the Rules before terminating the Respondent's services. Conclusion: After considering the submissions and discrepancies in the assessment documents, the Court agreed with the findings of the Tribunal and the High Court, concluding that there were no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal was rejected, and no costs were awarded.
|
