Petitioner challenged the School Tribunal's order dismissing his appeal against termination as an Assistant Teacher. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that termination occurred during the probation period, dismissing the writ petition.
No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1997 OF 2005
Prasad S. Dongaonkar ..Petitioner
versus
The Presiding Officer, School
Tribunal, Mumbai & Ors. ..Respondents
Mr. P. M. Gupte for the Petitioner.
Mr. A. G. Kothari for the Respondents.
CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J.
DATE : 21ST JULY, 2008.
P.C.
. The petitioner has challenged the Order of
the School Tribunal dismissing his Appeal against
his termination as an Assistant Teacher.
2. The petitioner was serving as an Assistant
Teacher under an Order dated 13.6.1997 when his
services were terminated. This appointment order at
Exhibit ’B’ was in a clear vacancy and the
petitioner was appointed for two years on probation.
His services were terminated by an Order dated
8.8.1998 i.e. after a period of about one year.
The School Tribunal has rightly held the termination
of the petitioner’s services as within the probation
:2:
period.
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner
however submitted that the petitioner had served for
more than two years since he was initially appointed
under an appointment order dated 1.7.1996. That
appointment order dated 1.7.1996 at Exhibit ’A’
shows that he was appointed specifically for a
period from 1.7.1996 to 1.5.1997. That appointment
thus came to an end on 1.5.1997. Thereafter the
petitioner made fresh application dated 15.5.1997
and he was appointed on 13.6.1997. It is during the
latter appointment which was for a period of two
years that his services came to be terminated.
4. The learned School Tribunal has rightly
relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in
Hindustan Education Society & Anr. vs. S. K.
Kaleem Sk. Gulam Nabi & Ors. [1997(3) Supreme 292]
5. It was also contended by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the termination order is not
by the Management and it is only by the Manager.
There is no merit in this contention because the
designation shows that the Manager is also the Sole
Trustee. Moreover this point has not been raised
:3:
before the School Tribunal and the Respondents had
no opportunity to rebut the same.
6. In this view of the matter, the petition is
liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(S. A. BOBDE, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the termination of petitioner's services as an Assistant Teacher fell within the probation period or extended service.
Whether the challenge regarding the Manager not being the Management was viable after lack of opportunity to rebut before the Tribunal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hindustan Education Society & Anr. vs. S. K. Kaleem Sk. Gulam Nabi & Ors.Referred¶18
Hindustan Education Society & Anr. vs. S. K. Kaleem Sk. Gulam Nabi & Ors. [1997(3) Supreme 292]
Prasad S. Dongaonkar
The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Mumbai & Ors.
S. A. BOBDE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court