LexPROGRESSIVE EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR. versus RAJENDRA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 1005 -~ PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR. A II. RAJENDRA & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 1318 of 2008) FEBRUARY 15, 2008 B [ A.K.MATHUR AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ] Service Law: Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions c of Service) Rules, 1981 - rr. 14, 15 and 15 (6) - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - s. 5(3) - Appointment - On probation - Termination of employee by Management before completion of probation period on the ground of unsatisfactory performance - Justification of- Held: Requirements of r. 15(6) D - ~ and r. 14 not complied with prior to invocation by School Management of the powers uls 5(3) of the Act-Also documents produced on behalf of School Management to justify the order of termination suspicious in nature - Thus, termination not ;ustified - Order of tribunal as well as High Court upheld. E Appellant no. 1-Society, appointed respondent no. 1 on probation for two years. However, the Management of the appellant-society terminated the services of the respondent before completion of the probation period on F .. -..., the ground of unsatisfactory performance. Respondent no. 1 challenged the termination order on the ground that there was nothing wrong with his performance or conduct; that the termination was in contravention of s. 5 (3) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Reg1Jlation Act, 1977; and that the G ,. > Management did not have any material before it to justify the termination order. The tribunal set aside the termination order and di~ected the appellant to reinstate the respondent. In writ petition, the High court upheld the 1005 H 1006 SUPREME COURT REPO"RTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. A order of the tribunal and dismissed the writ petition. Hence the present appeal Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The law with regard to termination of the s services of a Probationer is well established and it has been held that such a power lies with the Appointing Authority which is at liberty to terminate the services of a Probationer if it finds the performance of the Probationer to be unsatisfactory during the period 'Of probation. The c assessment has to be made by the Appointing Authority itself and the satisfaction is that of the Appointing Authority as well. Unless a stigma is attached to the termination or the Probationer is called upon to show cause for any shortcoming which may ~ubsequently be the cause for . 0 termination of the Probationer's service, the Management or the Appointing Authority is not required to give any explanation or reason for terminating the services except informing him that his services have been found to be unsatisfactory. [Para 13] [1012-D-F] E 1.2 In case of the termination of services of a probationer, the satisfaction required to be arrived at under sub-Section (3) of Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 has to be read along with Rule 15 of F the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, with particular reference to sub-Rule (6) which provides that the performance of an employee appQinted on probation is to be objectively assessed by the Head during the period G of his probation and a record of such assessment is to be maintained. If the two provisions are read together, it would mean that before taking recourse to the powers vested under sub-Section (3) of Section 5 of the MEPS Act, the performance of an employee appointed on H probation would have to be taken into consideration by ' t" - . PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION SOCIETY & ANR. v. 1007 . RAJENDRA & ANR. .. the School Management before terminating his services. A [Para 14] [1012-G-H; 1013-A·B] 1.3 While Rules 14 and 15 of the MEPS Rules, 1981 cannot override th.e provisions of sub-Section (3) of Section 5 of the MEPS Act, it has to be said that the requirements of sub-Rule (6) of Rule 15 would be a factor B which the School Management has to take into consideration while exercising the powers which it undoubtedly has and is recognised under sub-Section (3) of Section 5 of the Act. [Para 15] [1013-C] "C 1.4 The Confidential Report which was produced on behalf of the School Management does not inspire confidence on account of the different dates which appear both on Part-I and Part-II of the said Report. This merely
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.