[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION L.P.A.NO.360 OF 2008 IN W.P.NO.2705 of 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLN.NO.311 OF 2008 IN L.P.A.NO.360 OF 2008 IN W.P.NO.2705 OF 2008 Mahatma Gandhi Vidya Mandir and Anr. ..Appellants Vs. Barku Rama Jadhav & Anr. ..Respondents .... Anilkumar Patil for Appellants Ms.J.V.Kanade for Respondent No.1 Ms.M.P.Thakur AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 .... CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : MARCH 20, 2009 DATE : MARCH 20, 2009 DATE : MARCH 20, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Respondent No.1 was appointed as Assistant Teacher from 11.7.2000 in the Appellant-Institution. The services of Respondent No.1 came to be terminated on 30.4.2002. This termination was challenged by the Respondent No.1 before the School Tribunal. The School Tribunal set aside the termination of the services of [-2-] Respondent No.1 and order of reinstatement was passed with 50% backwages. The said order was challenged by the Appellant by filing Writ Petition No.2705 of 2008 before this Court. The learned Single Judge by order dated 17.4.2008 dismissed the said writ petition. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal. 3. There is no dispute about the factual position that the initial appointment of Respondent No.1 was an Assistant Teacher from 11.7.2000. There is also no dispute that the services of Respondent No.1 were terminated on 30.4.2002. However, the case of the Management is that the services of Respondent No.1 were terminated on 30.4.2002 due to reduction in workload. It was also contended that services of Respondent no.1 came to be terminated before completion of probation period. As far as second aspect is concerned, the copies of the muster roll showed that Respondent was continued in service even after 30.4.2002. In fact, letter dated 30.12.2002 of the Appellant to the Deputy Education Officer shows that the Respondent No.1 had joined services on 19.8.2000 and was in service till the date of letter, so also, the letter dated 4.12.2003 [-3-] of the Education Officer to the Head Master reflects that the Respondent No.1 was continued in service. Letter dated 6.9.2004 of the Education Officer also shows that the Respondent No.1 was in the service on that date. Hence, the contention of the Management that the Respondent No.1 came to be terminated on 30.4.2002 before completion of the probationary period, cannot be accepted. 4. The second contention of the Appellant is that as there was reduction in workload, the Respondent No.1 came to be terminated. As far as this aspect is concerned, the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that Rule 26 of the M.E.P.S.Rules, has not been complied with. Hence, termination of Respondent without prior compliance of Rule 26 deserves to be set aside. 5. In this view of the matter, we see no error or illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge. Hence, Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. Civil Application is also dismissed. [J.N.PATEL, J.] [J.N.PATEL, J.] [J.N.PATEL, J.] [-4-] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]