Writ Petition No. 4603 of 2020 · The High Court
Case Details
2025:BHC-AUG:3817 {1} WP-4603-2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 4603 OF 2020 Amol s/o Dattatraya DumanwadAge: 33 years, Occu. Service,R/o. Dongaon (Kh.), Post Dongaon (Bk.),Tq. Biloli, District- Nanded....PETITIONER[Orig. Petitioner]VERSUS1.Shri. Ramkishan Laxmanrao Dongaonkar,President, Local Education Society,Dongaon (Kh.), Post Dongaon (Bk.),Taluka Biloli, District- Nanded.2.Shri Babarao Marotrao WanshatyeSecretary, Local Education SoceityDongaon (Kh.), Post Dongagon (Bk.),Tq. Biloli, District- Nanded.3.Shri Krishna Ramdeo Joshi,Incharge Head Master,Maharshi Karve Vidyalaya,Dongaon (Kh.), Post Dongagon (Bk.),Tq. Biloli, District- Nanded.4.Education Officer (Secondary),Zilla Parishad, Nanded,Station Road, Nanded....RESPONDENTS [Orig. Respondents]Mr. S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for petitionerMr. Vivek J. Dhage, Advocate for respondent No. 1 and 3Mr. Vitthal G. Salgare, Advocate for respondent No. 2Mrs. D.S. Jape, AGP for State....... CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. RESERVED ON : 24th JANUARY, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 11th FEBRUARY, 2025Bhagyawant Punde
Facts
{2} WP-4603-2020JUDGMENT :1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finallywith the consent of parties.2.The petitioner is assailing the order dated 18thAugust, 2018, passed by Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Laturin Appeal No. 41 of 2013, to the extent of refusal of relief ofreinstatement to the post of Shikshan Sevak with continuity ofservice, back wages and other consequential benefits.3.The judgment and order of School Tribunal has beenchallenged on the ground that though the Tribunal whilerecording finding regarding appointment of Shikshan Sevak hasrecorded finding holding his appointment to be legal and validand his otherwise termination was held to be bad in law, theappeal of the petitioner has been dismissed, denying himreinstatement with continuity of service and back wages.Therefore, the question to be decided in the present petition iswhether inspite of positive findings recorded by the Tribunal thatappointment of the petitioner is valid, legal and by following dueprocedure of law and termination is bad in law, the relief ofreinstatement with continuity of service and back wages couldhave been denied to the petitioner.Bhagyawant Punde
Legal Reasoning
{19} WP-4603-2020termination is simplicitor termination without causing anystigma, it was not necessary to communicate any adverseremark to facilitate the employee to make representation, asurged by the learned advocate for the petitioner. It is only incase of stigmatic removal by the Management which prejudicesthe future prospects of an employee, while seeking employmentin other establishments, it is necessary to communicate adverseremarks since it casts aspersions on his character and violateshis constitutional right.27.He further places reliance on para 110 of thejudgment of Full Bench, where there is an observation whileinterpreting Rule 15(6) of MEPS Rules, which observes that,when termination does not amount to dismissal or removal byway punishment, maintaining of record of such assessmentunder Rule 15(6) MEPS Rules is sufficient. There is norequirement of writing and maintaining any confidential report ofthe probationer.28.Hence, relying on above observations of the FullBench, according to the learned advocate for the respondents,the position of law with regard to removal of probationer beforecompletion of probation is now settled by the decision of FullBhagyawant Punde {20} WP-4603-2020Bench. It is now settled that probationer does not have right onthe post to continue and termination does not amount todismissal or removal by way of punishment and employer hasevery right to evaluate the performance of probationer and hissuitability during the period of probation, in if he is not foundsuitable, he can be removed from services. So far as MEPS Act isconcerned, it is now clear that there is no requirement of givingany notice or to communicate adverse remark to a probationer inorder to facilitate the employee to make representation againstadverse remarks.29.According to him, work and behaviour of petitionerhas been assessed by Management, which is reflected from thevarious memos which are placed on record, which arecommunicated to the petitioner to which he did not respond andon the basis of evaluation of performance by Management,services of the petitioner are terminated, which is very muchvalid, legal and proper in view of decision of Full Bench.30.After hearing the respective parties, the issues thatarise for consideration before this Court are as under:(i) Whether appropriate permission of Deputy Director ofEducation was obtained before terminating the services ofBhagyawant Punde {21} WP-4603-2020the petitioner? (ii)Whether there is valid assessment of behaviour or work ofpetitioner by the Head Master of the School ascontemplated under Rule 15(6) of MEPS Rules?(iii)Whether the order passed by the Management directingtermination of services of petitioner in exercise of powerunder Section 5(3) of MEPS Act was preceded by anyreport of the Head Master, who is authorized to assess thework of the probationer?(iv)Whether denial of relief of reinstatement is appropriate?31.So far objection of the petitioner regarding absenceof permission from the Deputy Director of Education beforeterminating services of the petitioner as contemplated underClause 14(2) of Government Resolution dated 13.10.2000 isconcerned, the Management has demonstrated that theManagement in fact sought permission from the Deputy Directorof Education by communication dated 24.05.2013. Along withthe communication seeking permission to terminate the servicesof the petitioner, a reference was given to the variousmisconducts of petitioner, which was accompanied with thedocuments which were referred in the communication. Thoughthe communication was received by the Deputy Director ofEducation, there was no response to the said communication.Therefore, the Management has again sent reminder onBhagyawant Punde {22} WP-4603-202024.06.2013, referring to the earlier communication. It was alsoinformed in the said communication that considering the urgencyin the matter, early response is solicited. In spite of saidcommunication, there was no response from the Deputy Directorof Education. Though, there was no response from the DeputyDirector of Education to the Management, the Deputy Director ofEducation addressed a communication to the Education Officer(Secondary) on 09.07.2013 informing him about permissionsought by the Management and Education Officer (Secondary)was directed to take appropriate action as permissible under lawand report back to the Deputy Director of Education. Copy ofthat communication was forwarded to the Management. In viewof communication, which was addressed to the Education Officer(Secondary), the Management, has again addressed acommunication to the Education Officer (Secondary) remindinghim about the direction given by the Deputy Director ofEducation, to take appropriate action and requesting him to takeappropriate steps. Since, the Management did not receive anyresponse either from Deputy Director of Education or EducationOfficer (Secondary), the Management was constrained to passorder terminating the services of the petitioner.Bhagyawant Punde {23} WP-4603-202032.Clause 2 of the annexure to Government Resolutiondated 13.10.2000, which is relied upon by the petitioner as wellas by the Management provides that the services of theprobationer are capable of being terminated with priorpermission of Deputy Director of Education. The clause itself isclear and unambiguous, it is not a mandatory condition.33.There exists a substantive enabling provision in theMEPS Act itself, which confers power on the Management underSection 5(3) to terminate services of probationer if his work orbehaviour is found to be unsatisfactory. Further in the subsection (3) of Section 5 of the MEPS Act, itself a mechanism isprovided, on failure to give one month’s notice, salary orhonorarium of one month in lieu of notice can be given. In thepresent case, School Tribunal while observing that no priorpermission of the Deputy Director of Education has been takenhas rightly granted one month’s salary/honorarium in lieu ofnotice.34.Section 5(3) provides that if work or behaviour ofany probationer during the period of probation is found to beunsatisfactory, the services of the probationer can beterminated, meaning thereby if the probationer fails to satisfyBhagyawant Punde {24} WP-4603-2020any of the conditions, the Management is empowered toterminate the services. In the present case, there is failure onaccount of work as well as behaviour by the petitioner to satisfythe Management during his probation and it was also conveyedby the Management to the petitioner. Though, the petitioner wastime and again served with memos, he has not responded to it.The petitioner has on various occasions remained absent fromhis duty without permission, as can be seen from the documentsplaced on record.35.It also needs to be appreciated that the Presidentand Secretary of the Management called upon the Head masterto prepare and submit confidential report as per Section 14 and15 of MEPS Act, however, the Head master has not responded tothe communication of the Management and has avoided to makeavailable the assessment report of the petitioner. The conduct ofthe Head Master was also communicated to the Education Officerby communication dated 04.10.2012 by the Managementbringing it to the notice of Education Officer (Secondary) that theHead Master is avoiding to provide confidential/assessmentreport of the petitioner. He was also directed by the Managementto issue notice to the petitioner about termination of his services,Bhagyawant Punde {25} WP-4603-2020however, the Head Master has also failed to comply with the saiddirection. Therefore, in view of non co-operation by the DeputyDirector of Education, Education Officer (Secondary) and theHead Master, the Management was constrained to terminate theservices of the petitioner. The Management was having sufficientmaterial to assess the work and behaviour of the petitioner.Though, the Deputy Director of Education has failed to accordpermission and Head Master has also refused to co-operate byhis conduct, the Management having already communicated tothe petitioner about his misconduct through memos andcommunication calling upon him to explain his behaviour therewas material available with the Management to assess work andbehaviour of petitioner in order to arrive at a conclusion abouthis unsatisfactory work. Hence, there is no error committed bythe Presiding Officer, School Tribunal while observing that thepetitioner does not deserve to be reinstated in service since he isfound to be unfit for grant of reinstatement and continuity ofservice.36.In the decision of Full Bench in Gramin Yuvak VikasShikshan Mandal (supra), while interpreting Rule 15(6) it hasbeen observed that, the probationer has no right to his post andBhagyawant Punde {26} WP-4603-2020terminating services of probationer does not amount to dismissalor removal by way of punishment. Considering that thetermination of the petitioner in the present case is not stigmatic,there was no impediment for his prospects for futureemployment. It is also held that, it is not necessary to maintainconfidential report of a probationer. Even the objectiveassessment of performance of probationer during the period ofprobation by maintaining the record of assessment under Rule15(6) is sufficient. The rules of natural justice are also notrequired to be followed while terminating the services of anemployee appointed on probation, if the termination is innocuousand it does not cast any stigma.The present case stands fully covered by the aboveobservations made by Full Bench in Gramin Yuvak VikasShikshan Mandal (supra).37.Though, it is strenuously argued by the petitionerthat material which is required to be relied upon by theManagement is the material which is required to be maintainedby Head Master under Rule 15(6) of MEPS Rules, therefore, inabsence of objective assessment of the work by Head Masterduring the period of his probation, there cannot be terminationBhagyawant Punde {27} WP-4603-2020under Section 5(3) of the MEPS Act. However, in the peculiarfacts of the present case, wherein the Deputy Director ofEducation, Education Officer (Secondary) as well as Head Masterhave been time and again called upon to take appropriate stepsfor according sanction as well as providing assessment report ofthe petitioner, all the respective authorities have not responded.Hence in the peculiar facts of this case, the Management wasconstrained to pass an order terminating the services of thepetitioner, on the basis of material available with theManagement, which was sufficient to assess his work andbehaviour. Therefore, in my opinion the order passed by theSchool Tribunal does not suffer from any error or non applicationof mind and case of the petitioner stands covered by the decisionof Full Bench in Gramin Yuvak Vikas Shikshan Mandal (supra).38.Hence, the order passed by the School Tribunal doesnot deserve any interference and writ petition is accordinglydismissed. Rule stands discharged. (MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.)Bhagyawant Punde
Arguments
{3} WP-4603-20204.It is the contention of the petitioner that though it isheld that the appointment of petitioner is made after followingprescribed procedure and his termination is without followingprocedure of law, the relief of reinstatement has been denied tothe petitioner. According to the learned advocate for thepetitioner the finding of the School Tribunal is contrary to its ownobservations recorded with regard to the valid appointment aswell as termination of the petitioner without following dueprocedure of law. Once it is held that appointment is lawful andvalid and termination is without following due procedure of law,the necessary consequential relief that needs to follow isreinstatement with back wages. Hence, the finding of theTribunal on the issue of reinstatement needs to be interferedwith by this Court.5.Learned advocate Shri. Barlinge, appearing for thepetitioner contends that, it was a specific stand of respondents-management in their written statement filed before the Tribunalthat, work of the petitioner was not satisfactory during histenure in the school. He did not obey the directions of theManagement and he committed several illegal activitiesamounting to misconduct, therefore, the management byBhagyawant Punde {4} WP-4603-2020following due procedure of law as contemplated under clause14(2) of Government Resolution dated 13.10.2000, terminatedthe services of petitioner.6.The learned advocate for the petitioner placesreliance on the annexure to Government Resolution dated13.10.2000. Clause 14 to the Annexure of GovernmentResolution provides the terms and conditions for appointment ofShikshan Sevak. As per clause 14(2), during the tenure ofShikshan Sevak, if it is found that he has committed misconduct,his appointment shall be cancelled by the appointing authority.So far as private educational institutions are concerned, suchappointment shall be cancelled with prior permission of DeputyDirector of Education.7.Reliance is placed by the Management on this clausein support of termination of the petitioner. It is contended thatthe respondents have not obtained permission of DeputyDirector, of Education, before terminating the services of thepetitioner. In spite of that the Tribunal has not taken into accountthe absence of permission of Deputy Director of Education. TheTribunal has held that, valid assessment of the work of appellanthas been done by the Management, which is proper. According toBhagyawant Punde {5} WP-4603-2020the assessment, appellant has committed dereliction of duties.8.Though, the Management had sought permission ofthe Education Officer, which was not granted and was keptpending, the Tribunal has observed that the Management can bedirected to overcome the technical lacuna of not obtaining priorpermission of Deputy Director of Education, by granting salary ofone month in lieu of notice, to be paid by Management, thisobservation is erroneous. It his contention that when theManagement itself has relied on clause 14(2) of the GovernmentResolution dated 13.10.2000, it could not have dispensed with it,since, it was pre condition required to be fulfilled beforeterminating the services of a Shikshan Sevak. Unless and untilthe necessary condition was complied with by the Management,the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated.Hence, the School Tribunal has committed an error by holdingthat necessary condition of obtaining prior permission of theDeputy Director of Education can be compensated by grantingone month salary in lieu of the same.9.Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitsthat even as per Section 5(3) of the Maharashtra Employees ofPrivate Schools (Conditions Of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (forBhagyawant Punde {6} WP-4603-2020short ‘MEPS Act’), the Management has to assess work andbehaviour of an employee, who is undergoing the period ofprobation and in case his work is found to be unsatisfactory, theManagement can terminate his services during the probation bygiving one month notice.10.However, according to learned advocate for thepetitioner, Rule 15(6) of Maharashtra Employees of PrivateSchools (Conditions Of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short ‘MEPSRules’) provide that performance of employee appointed onprobation shall be objectively assessed by the Head during theperiod of his probation and a record of such assessment shall bemaintained.11.According to learned advocate for the petitioner,there is no objective assessment of the work of petitioner placedbefore the Management, which is assessed by Head Master inorder to support the action of termination of services of thepetitioner resorting to Section 5(3) of the MEPS Act.12.It is further contented that work and behaviour of anemployee is assessed by Head Master during probation and if atall the Management is of the opinion that, his work is notsatisfactory, only upon receiving such report, the ManagementBhagyawant Punde {7} WP-4603-2020has the power to terminate the services of the probationer asprovided under Section 5(3) of the MEPS Act. In the presentcase, termination by the Management is not preceded by anysuch assessment report prepared by Head Master. Therefore,according to learned advocate for the petitioner, termination ofthe petitioner is illegal. This aspect of the matter has ben totallyignored by the Tribunal. It is his contention that the terminationof services of the petitioner during his probation is a punitiveaction of the Management.13.Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitsthat without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioneror even intimating him about alleged misbehavior, petitioner hasbeen terminated. He submits that even the probationer isrequired to be given a show cause notice if he is not likely to becontinued by the Management. In support of this submission, heplaces reliance on reported judgment in the case of DiptiPrakash Banerjee v. Satvendra Nath Bose National Centre forBasic Sciences, Calcutta and others, 1999 AIR SCW 605.14.He further submits that if the Management is allegingmisbehavior and misconduct, then in such scenario it amounts tostigma and therefore, show cause notice should have beenBhagyawant Punde {8} WP-4603-2020preceded by order of termination. In support of his contention herelies on observations in para 36 of the aforesaid judgment,wherein it is observed that;“36.The above decision is, in our view, clearauthority for the proposition that the material whichamounts to stigma need not be contained in theorder of termination of the probationer but might becontained in any document referred to in thetermination order or in its Annexures. Obviouslysuch a document could be asked for or called for byany future employer of the probationer. In such acase, the order of termination would stand vitiatedon the ground that no regular inquiry wasconducted. We shall presently consider whether, onthe facts of the case before us, the documentsreferred to in the impugned order contain anystigma.”15.Hence, according to him in view of finding recordedby the School Tribunal that the appointment of petitioner is validand termination is without following due procedure of law,consequential order of reinstatement with back wages shouldhave been granted by the Tribunal. Since, the order of SchoolTribunal lacks reasoning to support denial of reinstatement withback wages, the order suffers from non application of mind andperversity, hence, it is required to be quashed and set aside.16.Learned advocate Shri. Vivek Dhage, appearing forthe Management submits that, it needs to be appreciated thatBhagyawant Punde {9} WP-4603-2020the petitioner was on probation and in law a ‘probationer’ doesnot have any right to seek continuation. The learned Advocatehas drawn my attention to the order of termination in support ofcontention that, order of termination dated 07.09.2013 does notin any way allege petitioner of any misconduct or any stigmaticremark. He further relies on the communication dated24.05.2014, wherein referring to the misconduct of petitionerthe permission of the Deputy Director of Education has beensought for terminating services of the petitioner. According to thelearned advocate Shri. Dhage, petitioner has refused to complywith the order of School Tribunal passed in favour of Shri.Vyankat Babarao Patil, Assistant Teacher, by refusing him toresume his duties, in accordance with the communication issuedby Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded. He has committedvarious misconducts by not following the orders issued by themembers of Management. He also has not responded to thememos issued by the Management calling upon him to giveexplanation either orally or writing. Hence, referring to themisconduct and misbehavior of petitioner, permission was soughtfrom the Deputy Director of Education, however, in spite ofreminders sent by Management, no permission was granted bythe Deputy Director of Education for a long period. FurtherBhagyawant Punde {10} WP-4603-2020reminder was sent to Education Officer on 13.08.2013, but theyhave not received positive reply, therefore, Management wasconstrained to pass order of termination.17.According to the learned advocate for respondents,the rules and provisions of the MEPS Act in this regard are veryclear, more particularly, Section 5(3) of MEPS Act, empowers theManagement to do away with the service of employee aftergiving him one month notice, if his behavior and work is notsatisfactory during the period of probation.18.Learned advocate for the Management, furthersubmits that various memos which were served on the petitionerto which he has not responded, lends support to the decision oftermination taken by the Management, due to unsatisfactorywork as well as behavior of the petitioner. It is the specificcontention of the Management before the School Tribunal, thatpetitioner was absent from duty without sanctioned leave fromthe authorities as per Rule 16 of MEPS Rules. Since thepetitioner was not following the orders of the Management aswell as Education Officer and the School Tribunal, it was a gravemisconduct on the part of the petitioner. The work of thepetitioner was not satisfactory during his service. OnBhagyawant Punde {11} WP-4603-202023.11.2011, when the President of the Trust had visited theschool, the National Anthem was in progress, however thepetitioner was absent, therefore, he was issued show causenotice calling explanation of the petitioner. However, thepetitioner did not submit any reply to the said notice. Even,thereafter, a notice was issued on 05.12.2011, to which thepetitioner has not responded. The petitioner was absent from hisduty without prior permission. Hence, there are variousinstances of misconduct by petitioner, for which he was issuedshow cause notice, which have not been responded.19.It is the contention of respondents that the Presidentand Secretary of the Trust directed the Head Master to prepareand submit a confidential report of petitioner as per Section 14and 15 of MEPS Act. Copy of communication dated 30.09.2012 isplaced on record in support of said contention. In spite ofcommunication issued to the Head Master, the Head Master hasfailed to submit the confidential report of the petitioner. Acommunication was also addressed to the Education Officer,Secondary, Zilla Parisahd, Nanded, wherein it was brought to thenotice of Education Officer that in spite of direction to the HeadMaster to issue notice of termination to the petitioner for hisBhagyawant Punde {12} WP-4603-2020unsatisfactory work, the Head Master has not acted accordingly.It is further contended by the learned advocate for therespondents that as contemplated under Clause 14(2) of theGovernment Resolution dated 13.10.2000, the Management hadsubmitted a proposal of the petitioner to the Deputy Director ofEducation seeking prior permission for terminating services ofpetitioner as Shikshan Sevak. The proposal was accompaniedwith the supporting documents about unsatisfactory work andbehaviour of the petitioner. Since, they did not receive anypositive response from the Deputy Director of Education, theyhave also sent reminders to the office of Deputy Director ofEducation, Latur, When such reminders were sent, DeputyDirector of Education has communicated to the Education Officer,Nanded that respondents have submitted a proposal and hasfurther directed him to take appropriate steps. Since a copy wasforwarded to the respondents, respondents again requested theEducation Officer to do the needful and sought permission forterminating the services of the petitioner. Unfortunately, therewas no response either from the Deputy Director of Education orEducation Officer, Secondary, Zilla Parishad, Nanded, hence theManagement was constrained to pass resolution in the meetingof Managing Committee, terminating the services of theBhagyawant Punde {13} WP-4603-2020petitioner. The petitioner was terminated by the Managementfrom 10.09.2013, by following due procedure of law. It is thecontention of the respondents that on the background ofmisconduct and unsatisfactory behavior of the petitioner, theSchool Tribunal has passed order refusing reinstatement andback wages to the petitioner, which is justified.20.The learned advocate for the respondents relied onthe decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of GraminYuvak Vikas Shikshan Mandal, Kinhi Naik, Buldhana and anothervs. Shivnarayan Datta Raut and another, 2023(4) Mh.L.J. 323,wherein the reference was made to the Full Bench by SingleJudge on points which are reproduced herein below;“(i) Whether only sub-rule (6) of Rule 15 of theMEPS Rules applies to an employee appointed onprobation when the Management seeks to takeaction under Section 5(3) of the MEPS Act or entireRule 15 from sub-rules (1) to (6) of the MEPS Rulesapply to such an employee appointed on probation?(ii) Whether judgment of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in the case of Progressive Education Societyand another v. Rajendra and another (supra) laysdown that entire Rule 15 of the MEPS Rules appliesto an employee appointed on probation, particularlyin the context of power available to theManagement under Section 5(3) of the MEPS Act?(iii) Whether failure to adhere to requirements ofBhagyawant Punde {14} WP-4603-2020sub-rules (3) and (5) of Rule 15 of the MEPS Ruleswould ipso facto vitiate an action taken by theManagement under Section 5(3) of the MEPS Act,despite the fact that the Management satisfiesrequirement of sub-rule (6) of Rule 15 of the MEPSRules by ensuring that performance of an employeeappointed on probation has been objectivelyassessed by the Head and record of such anassessment has been maintained?(iv) Whether non-compliance of sub-rule (5) of Rule15 of the MEPS Rules would vitiate an order oftermination of service simpliciter issued by theManagement under Section 5(3) of the MEPS Actwhen the said sub-rule deems that “work of anemployee is satisfactory”, while Section 5(3) of theMEPS Act gives power to the Management toterminate the service of an employee appointed onprobation not only for “unsatisfactory work”, butalso for “unsatisfactory behaviour”?(v) Whether it would be sufficient compliance on thepart of the Management while acting under Section5(3) of the MEPS Act, if it complies with only sub-rule (6) of Rule 15 of the MEPS Rules by ensuringthat the performance of an employee appointed onprobation is objectively assessed and the Headmaintains record of such assessment, and principlesof natural justice stand satisfied by issuingnotices/warnings for unsatisfactory work to such anemployee appointed on probation, considering thelimited rights available to such an employee as perlaw laid down from the case of Parshotam LalDhingra v. Union of India (supra) in the year 1958and onwards?”21. It is observed by the Full Bench that, wholeBhagyawant Punde {15} WP-4603-2020controversy as to whether while terminating the services of anemployee appointed on probation by the Management by takingrecourse to Section 5(3) of the MEPS Act on the ground ofunsatisfactory work or behaviour, only sub-rule (5) of Rule 15 ofMEPS Rules applies or sub-rules (1) to (6) of Rule 15 of theMEPS Rules apply to such an employee. Section 5(3) of MEPS Actand Rule 15(6) of MEPS Rules, are reproduced herein below,which read thus: Section 5(3) of MEPS Act“5.Certain obligations of Management of privateschools:(1)------(3)If in the opinion of the Management, the workor behaviour of any probationer during the period ofhis probation, is not satisfactory, the Managementmay terminate his services at any time during thesaid period after giving him one month’s notice orsalary or honorarium of one month in lieu of notice.”Rule 15(6) of MEPS Rules“R.15. Writing confidential reports etc.:(1)----(2)----(6)Performance of an employee appointed onprobation shall be objectively assessed by the Headduring the period of his probation and a record ofsuch assessment shall be maintained.”22.Upon considering the provisions of MEPS Act andBhagyawant Punde {16} WP-4603-2020MEPS Rules, Full Bench of this Court has come to a conclusionthat a probationer has no right to his post and the termination ofservice of probationer does not amount to dismissal or removalby way of punishment. The probationer is on test and if theservices are found not to be satisfactory, the employer has everyright to terminate his services. The purpose of any probation isto ensure that before the employee attains the status ofconfirmed employee, he should satisfactorily perform his dutiesand functions. The entire objective of probation is to provide theemployer an opportunity to evaluate the probationer’sperformance and test his suitability for a particular post.23.The probationers have no indefeasible right tocontinue in employment until confirmed, and they can berelieved if found unsuitable. The probationers in case oftermination have protection under the principles of naturaljustice if removal is stigmatic and if it prejudices his futureprospects or casts aspersions on his character or violatesconstitutional rights. It has been further observed that, since it isheld that probationer has no right to his post and his terminationof service does not amount to a dismissal or removal by way ofpunishment, there is no requirement to initiate disciplinaryBhagyawant Punde {17} WP-4603-2020proceedings or departmental enquiry to terminate the service ofprobationer on the ground of unsatisfactory behaviour orperformance. The objective assessment of performance, duringthe period of his probation by maintaining the record of suchassessment under Rule 15(6) of the MEPS Rules, is sufficient.Hence, there is no requirement to write and maintainconfidential report of a probationer.24.It is further observed that, in case of an employeeappointed on probation, if the order of termination is innocuousand which does not cast any stigma, it is not necessary tocommunicate adverse remarks or to facilitate such an employeeto make representation as provided under sub-rule (4) of Rule15 of MEPS Rules.25.Question No. (v) framed for determination byReference Court is relevant for present case. Question No. (v)framed by Single Judge and answer to it by the Reference Courtis reproduced herein below:Q.(v) Whether it would be sufficient compliance onthe part of the Management while acting underSection 5(3) of the MEPS Act, if it complies withonly sub-rule (6) of Rule 15 of the MEPS Rules byensuring that the performance of an employeeappointed on probation is objectively assessed andthe Head maintains record of such assessment, andBhagyawant Punde {18} WP-4603-2020principles of natural justice stand satisfied byissuing notices/warnings for unsatisfactory work tosuch an employee appointed on probation,considering the limited rights available to such anemployee as per law laid down from the case ofParshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India (supra) inthe year 1958 and onwards?Answer to Question No.(v): As per the law laiddown in the case of Parshotam Lal Dhingra (supra)that where a person appointed on probation, thetermination of his service during or at the end ofthe period of probation will not ordinarily or by itselfbe a punishment because such employee has noright to continue to hold such post, the terminationwill not operate as forfeiture of right to hold suchpost. Therefore, it would be sufficient compliance onthe part of the Management while acting underSection 5(3) of the MEPS Act, if it complies withonly sub-rule (6) of Rule 15 of the MEPS Rules.Further, as the principles of natural justice do notapply to the probationer unless the termination isstigmatic, issuance of notice/ warnings forunsatisfactory work to such an employee appointedon probation is not contemplated under the MEPSAct or MEPS Rules.26.Learned advocate for the respondents submits thatsince the petitioner was on probation, he did not haveindefeasible right to the post. The Management had every rightto evaluate his performance in order to test suitability of thepetitioner. During evaluation of work and behaviour of thepetitioner, he was not found to be suitable and since his order ofBhagyawant Punde