1 WP 7243.2011 - [ J ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7243 OF 2011 1) Society of Woman Higher Education in India Through Provincial Sister Pratibha Pinto R/o : At Sophiya College for Woman, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai. 2) Head Mistress St. Theresa High School (Girls) Haregaon, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. : Ahmednagar Through Sister Jyoti Bansi Gajbhiv Age : 37 Yrs., Occ. Service as Head Master, R/o : At Sophiya College for Woman, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai. 3) Sister Mari Narovha Chair person, St. Theresa High School (Girls) Haregaon, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. : Ahmednagar .... PETITIONERS V E R S U S 2 WP 7243.2011 - [ J ] 1. Manoj S/o Vinod Randive Age : 23 Yrs., Occ. Nil, R/o L Haregaon, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. : Ahmednagar 2. The Education Officer [ Secondary ] Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. D.G.Nagode, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.P.More, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. V.V.Deshmukh, Advocate for Resp. No. 1. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 19/10/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel, taken up for final hearing. 2. The present respondent no. 1 was appointed as Shikshan Sevak on probation for the period of three ( 3 ) years, vide notice dated 31/03/2011 the petitioners terminated the services of the respondent no. 1 w.e.f. 01/05/2011. The petitioners assailed the said order of termination by filing Appeal before the School Tribunal along with an 3 WP 7243.2011 - [ J ] application for stay. The School Tribunal vide its order dated 28/07/2011 allowed the said application and stayed the termination order. The said order of stay is assailed in the present Writ Petition. 3. Mr. Nagode, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent no. 1 was probationer and the petitioners had every right to terminate the services of the respondent no. 1 during probation. The learned counsel further contends that the order impugned passed by the School Tribunal though at an interlocutory stage is as good as final order, which could not have been passed. According to the learned counsel, for terminating the probationer, no enquiry is contemplated and the order of termination is not stigmatic. 4. Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 submits that the order of termination is ex-facie illegal. No enquiry has been conducted. The learned counsel relies on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of V.P.Ahuja V/s State of Punjab and others reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court – 1080. The learned counsel further contends that even no approval of the Education Officer has been taken for issuance of the said termination order. The School Tribunal has considered all these aspects and has rightly passed the order. According to the learned counsel, the order impugned is not a final order. The Tribunal 4 WP 7243.2011 - [ J ] has not ordered reinstatement, but has only stayed the termination order, meaning thereby the petitioners can work so as to avoid further multiplicity. The stand of the petitioners that they have already appointed a teacher on 01/07/2011 is not in tune with the Govt. resolutions, which lay down that no fresh appointments can be made if the Appeal is pending. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the respective parties, I have gone through the impugned order. 6. The order of termination was issued by the petitioners vide notice dated 31/03/2011 and the same was to take effect from 01/05/2011. The order of termination has already taken effect on 01/05/2011. The School Tribunal could not have stayed the order which has already taken effect. As the order has already taken effect, it was improper on the part of the School Tribunal to stay the same. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel regarding the requirement to conduct an enquiry before termination or non approval from the Education Officer about the said order of termination, are the grounds which can be considered at the time of final disposal of the Appeal. Suffice it to say that the order of termination has already taken effect. 5 WP 7243.2011 - [ J ] 7. The arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents that multiplicity or complications would be created if new candidates are appointed, is also unfounded in view of the fact that in case on merits the Appeal of the present respondent no. 1 before the School Tribunal is allowed, then any appointment made would not hamper his rights and the same would always be the subject to the decision of the Appeal. If any appointments are being made by the petitioners, the same would be at their risk. 8. In view of the above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The application for stay filed by the present respondent no. 1 before the School Tribunal is rejected. 9. The School Tribunal shall expedite the hearing of the Appeal and shall dispose it as expeditiously as possible and preferably within the period of nine ( 9 ) months from today. 10. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP WP 7243.2011 - [ J ] 6 WP 7243.2011 - [ J ]