-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2822 of 2005 1. The Secretary, Kala Vidya Mandir Trust, a Trust registered under the Public Trust Act and Societies Registration Act, having its office address at C/o. Kala Vidya Mandir High School, Manohar Nagar, Sakivihar Road, Kurla Pipeline, Mumbai--400 072. 2. The Headmistress, Kala Vidya Mandir High School, Manohar Nagar, Sakivihar Road, Kurla Pipeline, Mumbai--400 072. : Petitioners V/s. 1. Ms Hemlata Bhanudas Nikam, having her address at 29/7, Worli B.D.D. Chawl, Ganpatrao Jadhav Marg, Worli, Mumbai--400 018. 2. The Educational Inspector West Zone, Ismail Yusuf College Compound, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai--400 060. -: 2 :- 3. The State of Maharashtra (Through the Government Pleader, High Court, Original Side, Mumbai--400 001). : Respondents ... Ms Varsha Palav for the petitioners. None present for the respondents. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : AUGUST 27, 2008. ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner-Trust has challenged the judgement of the School Tribunal, Mumbai, dated 19.9.2005 setting aside the termination of the respondent no.1 and directing her reinstatement in an appeal filed by her. 2. The respondent no.1 was appointed on purely temporary basis for a period of one academic year i.e. 1999-2000. The respondent no.1 categorically accepted this appointment in writing. This tenure was terminated by a letter dated 28.3.2000 with effect from 30.4.2000. On a fresh application, the respondent no.1 was appointed on probation for a period of two years from 13.6.2000 to 30.4.2002. This appointment was also accepted in writing. -: 3 :- 3. Apparently, the respondent no.1’s behaviour was not satisfactory. There are three letters dated 22.8.2000, 8.9.2000 and 11.7.2001 listing the unsatisfactory nature of work. On one occasion, it appears that the Headmistress of the petitioners had to seek police help in respect of the respondent no.1’s belligerent behaviour and her brother’s intervention in the matter. Be that as it may, the petitioners chose not to initiate any disciplinary proceedings which may have cast a stigma on the respondent no.1 and apparently, instead of opting for disciplinary proceedings, the petitioners decided to terminate the respondent no.1’s services by payment of one month’s salary in lieu of notice by an order dated 30.7.2001. This termination was after one year of the respondent no.1’s last appointment on probation. The respondent approached the School Tribunal in an appeal under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The School Tribunal has set aside the termination. Hence, this petition. 4. Though served, the respondents have not appeared. 5. Ms Palav, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the order of the School Tribunal suffers from an error of law apparent on the record inasmuch as -: 4 :- the School Tribunal has treated the vacancy to which the respondent no.1 was appointed as a permanent vacancy, without considering the nature of the appointment, merely because the respondent no.1 was appointed on two successive occasions. There is substance in the contention on behalf of the petitioners. The first appointment was clearly for a temporary period of one year which was accepted as such by the respondent no.1. At the end of the period, the respondent no.1’s services were terminated. The second appointment was different in nature. It was an appointment on probation, for a period of two years which may have resulted in the respondent no.1’s confirmation, if she has successfully completed her probationary period. However, the second appointment was terminated by the petitioners before the expiry of the period of probation. In such circumstances, where the first appointment was purely for a temporary period of one year and the second appointment made on a fresh application was for the period of two years on probation, it was not permissible for the Tribunal to infer that there was a permanent clear vacant post of Asstt. Teacher in the school during the period of both these appointments and, therefore, the respondent no.1’s services stood confirmed. It is settled law vide Hindustan Education Society v. Sk. Kaleem Sk. Gulam Nabi (AIR 1997 SC 2126) that the employee is not entitled for confirmation if the -: 5 :- appointment is for a specific period. Consequently, the tenure of that appointment cannot be added to the tenure of another appointment for the purpose of confirmation of the employee. 6. On the other aspect, the Tribunal lost sight of the fact that the respondent no.1’s services were on probation and were liable to be terminated during the probationary period, in accordance with law. It was not necessary for the management to have resorted to disciplinary action which might have cast a stigma on the respondent no.1. The petitioners were within their right to issue an order of termination simplicitor, vide decisions of this Court in Ashok v. Secy., Tulsabai Kawal Vidyalaya (2006 (4) Mh.L.J. 759), Sec., H.S.N.C. Board v. Deepak (2006 (5) Mh.L.J. 403) and Nilambari v. Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha (2007 (3) Mh.L.J. 822). 7. In this view of the matter, the petition succeeds. The impugned judgement of the Tribunal is set aside. The rule is made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs. S.A. BOBDE, J.