1 W. P. No. 10881/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10881 OF 2010 Govind Hari Chaudhari and another .. Petitioners Versus The Education Officer (Secondary), Z. P. Jalgaon and another .. Respondents Ms Surekha Mahajan, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri D. R. Korde, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1. Shri A. S. Sheoke, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 21ST DECEMBER, 2010. PER COURT : . Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 08th October, 2010 passed by the School Tribunal Nashik, in Appeal No. 74/2009. The counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the grounds on which the services of the respondent No. 2 are terminated. According to the counsel for the petitioners, when the post is not available and when the work load is not available, 2 W. P. No. 10881/2010 there was no option to the management, but to remove the respondent No. 2 from the employment of the petitioners. The counsel further submitted that the procedure as contemplated U/Sec. 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Regulation of Service Condition) Act 1977 has been properly followed. The counsel further invited my attention to the judgment of learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Laxmi Education Society and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2010 (2) Mh. L. J. page 837 and submitted that if the work load is reduced and if the school or junior college is closed, this Court has taken a view that the management should have liberty to take appropriate steps. Learned counsel further submitted that Rule 25 and 26 of the Rules of 1981 only contemplates notice in respect of permanent employee. It is further submitted that since the respondent No. 2 was a probationer there is no question of passing drastic order by the School Tribunal allowing the appeal with continuity of service and all consequential benefits, etc. The counsel further invited my attention to the pleadings and grounds taken in the petition and annexures thereto and submitted that this petition deserves to be allowed. 2. The counsel for the respondent No. 2 relying upon the reasons recorded by the School Tribunal in allowing the appeal 3 W. P. No. 10881/2010 and also relying upon the affidavit in reply submitted that writ petition is devoid of merits. The order passed by the management terminating the services of the respondent No. 2 is in utter disregard to the provisions of Sec. 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 and upon perusal of provisions of Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is devoid of any merits. The Section 5 Sub Section 3 and 4 of the Act of 1977 reads as under : 5. (1) ................................. (2) ................................. (3) If in the opinion of the Management, the work or behaviour of any probationer, during the period of his probation, is not satisfactory, the Management may terminate his services at any time during the said period after giving him one month's notice [or salary or honorarium of one month in lieu of notice] Mere perusal of provision of Section 5 Sub Section 3 of the Said 4 W. P. No. 10881/2010 Act of 1977 would show that the services of the probationer can be terminated only on the ground if his/her work or behaviour is not satisfactory during the period of probation. These are the only grounds which are available for the management to terminate the services of the probationer who is on probation. It is admitted position that on these grounds the services of the respondent No. 2 are not terminated. The respondent No. 2 is not removed from the service on the above said grounds. However, contention of the management is that work load is reduced because IVth division of the standard VIII is closed down, consequently, the services of the respondent No. 2 are terminated. 5. The School Tribunal has delt with all the aspects of the matter and recorded its finding in consonance with the pleading and evidence brought on record. As stated hereinabove the services of the respondent No. 2 are terminated on the ground other than available U/Sec. 5 Sub Section 3 of the Said Act of 1977. In this view of the matter, I do not think that any interference is warranted in the well written judgment of the School Tribunal. Hence writ petition is devoid of any merits and stands dismissed. [S. S. SHINDE, J.] bsb/Dec. 10