/ 1/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.47 OF 2003 IN REVIEW PETITION NO.26 OF 2003 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7230 OF 2002 Dipak Kisanrao Bargaje ...Appellant V/s. Maratha Mandir Vidya Vardhini & Ors. ...Respondents Shri.S.D. Thakade for Appellant. Shri.V.C. Ghosalkar for Respondent No.1. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATED : 17th JANUARY, 2008. P.C.:- 1. The Appellant is challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.7230 of 2002 whereby the petition filed by the Appellant was rejected. The Appellant is also challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Review Petition No.26 of 2003 whereby the Review Petition was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge. / 2/ 2. Brief facts, in nutshell, are as under:- The Appellant was appointed by the Respondent No.1 School as part-time Assistant Teacher on probation for a period of two years on 28/09/1999. Services of the Appellant, however, were terminated by the termination order dated 31/3/2001 before the expiry of the period of probation. Being aggrieved by the said order of the termination, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the School Tribunal U/s.9 of M.E.P.S. Act. The Respondents filed their reply before the School Tribunal wherein it was contended that the Appellant's work and behavior was not satisfactory and, therefore, his services were terminated. The School Tribunal accepted the contentions of the Respondents and dismissed the appeal. Against this order, the Appellant preferred a Writ Petition in this Court. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the Appellant was appointed on probation for a period of two years and his services were terminated before the expiry of the period of two years since his services were not required. Learned Single Judge also observed that probationer's services could be terminated without assigning any reasons and rejected contentions of the Appellant herein that reasons had to be assigned if the probationer's work was not found satisfactory in terms of Section 5(3) of M.E.P.S. Act. The / 3/ Review Petition was also summarily dismissed. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant invited our attention to the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prabhakar Shrikrishna Kokade V/s. Adivasi Magaswarg Shikshan Mandal Sindewahi & Anr. reported in 1993 Mh.L.J.375. He submitted that in view of ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, order of termination was liable to be set aside since no reasons had been assigned for unsatisfactory work of the Appellant. 4. It is not possible to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant. It is a well settled position in law that the employer has a right to terminate services of the employee if he is appointed on probation before expiry of the period of probation without assigning any reasons. The Apex Court in catena of judgments has held that the employer has a right to terminate the services of the probationer without assigning any reasons before the expiry of the period of probation. Ratio of the judgments of the Apex Court, therefore, will squarely apply to the facts of the present case. No case is made out by / 4/ the Appellant for interfering with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the Review Petition or in the Writ Petition. 5. Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. Under the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ( D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)