1 L.P.A.No. 222.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 222 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5106 OF 2009 1. Vidyavardhini Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha, Kandhar, Police Colony, behind Court, Kandhar,Tq. Kandhar, District Nanded, through its President. And others. ...APPELLANTS. VERSUS 1. Sandeep S/o Prakashrao Sabne Age 25 years,Occup.Service, (Terminated) R/o Balaji Galli, Mukhed,Ta. Mukhed, District Nanded and another. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.A.S.Golegaonkar,Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.R.N.Dhorde,Advocate for respondent No.1. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 6th SEPTEMBER, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 L.P.A.No. 222.10 2. By way of this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellants-Original petitioners challenge the interim order, dated 23rd November, 2009, passed by the learned Single Judge (CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J.) 3. Mr. Golegaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that respondent No.1 Sandeep was appointed as “Shikshan Sevak” on 09th April, 2007. Due to his misbehaviour, on 02.08.2008 notice was issued by the Secretary of the Management to him, pointing out his misbehaviour and explanation was called from him, as to why he shall not be punished. Accordingly, respondent submitted explanation addressed to Secretary of the Society on 16.08.2008. Thereafter, by a communication dated 27.08.2008, Secretary informed respondent that in future if such misbehaviour was noticed appropriate punishment would be imposed, which will affect his future service career also. The complaint was also filed against the respondent with Police Station Kandhar, in respect of his alleged 3 L.P.A.No. 222.10 misbehaviour. By a communication-Application dated 09.09.2008, Mr. Chandrashekar Devidasrao More, Secretary, informed Police Inspector, Police Station, Kandhar stating therein that quarrel took place between some teachers and himself on account of issuance of notice, but the same has been resolved after conciliation reached by the parties. In future no such dispute would arise, therefore, he requested the Police Inspector of Police Station Kandhar, for withdrawal of the said complaint. By a communication dated 08th October, 2008 service of the respondent-Sandeep as “Shikshan Sevak” came to be terminated. 4. Mr. Golegaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the service of the respondent No.1 was on probation, for a period of three years and the same was terminated due to misbehaviour and not due to performance of teaching. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the enquiry was not required and the Management was empowered to terminate the services 4 L.P.A.No. 222.10 of the probationer. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the following reported Judgments: 1] Principal B.K.M. High School Mumbai and another Vs. Keshab Achari, 2008(1) Mh.L.J.438. 2] Tulsiram Kashinath Gaulkar Vs. Hinganghat Shikshan Sanstha, Hinganghat and others, 2009(6) Mh.L.J.778. 3] Anand Education Society Lakhani and another Vs. Bharti W/o Bhaskarrao Parsodkar and others, 2009(3) Mh.L.J., 810. 4] Rehana Begum D/o Shaikh Safdar Vs. Khwaja Baba Urdu Education Society, 2009(3) Mh.L.J. 665, 5] Pradeep Babubhai Chinal and another Vs. Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd.,Bombay and others, 2009(3) Mh.L.J.671. 6] Leela Chandrashekar Vs. Tate of Goa and another 2008(2) Mh.L.J.,143. 7] Progressive Education Society and another vs. Rajendra and another, 2008(2) Mh.L.J.,715. 5. The learned counsel further submits that 5 L.P.A.No. 222.10 post is not available for accommodating the respondent, as candidate belonging to S.C. Category was appointed already, after respondent was terminated. 6. Mr. Dhorde, learned Counsel appearing for respondent-Sandeep placed reliance on the Judgments in the matters of Mrs. Swati Vasant Patil and another Vs. The Kandivali Education Society and others reported in 2002(1) All MR 333 and Progressive Education Society and another Vs. Rajendra and another reported in (2008)3 Supreme Court Cases 310. 7. The counsel further submits that Tribunal and learned Single Judge considered the provisions of Section 5(3) and Rules 14 and 15 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of service) Regulation Act and the Rules made thereunder. The termination of the respondent was not stigmatic. In spite of grant of 6 L.P.A.No. 222.10 opportunity the documents relating to assessment and performance of the employee-respondent were not placed on record, before the Trial Court as per schedule “G”, and as per Rules (14) and (15). 8. The learned counsel further submits that compliance of provisions of Section 5(3) of the MEPS Act can not be done partially in respect of compliance of Rules (14) and (15). It was submitted that parties settled the matter and complaint was withdrawn by the Secretary from the Police Station. So termination of the respondent- Sandeep, thereafter, was stigmatic in nature. 9. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. We have perused the Judgments cited supra. We have also perused the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules (14), (15) and Schedule “G”. We have also perused the notice issued by the Secretary addressed to respondent-Sandeep on 27.08.2008 (Page No. 75), reply of the respondent-Sandeep 7 L.P.A.No. 222.10 and communication dated 09.09.2008 made by the Secretary to the Police Station, Kandhar. Prima facie we find that issue raised before this Court was considered by the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge. Considering the issue raised, the learned single Judge was of the view to refuse the interim relief in respect of reinstatement by granting interim relief to the extent of payment of back wages. 10. In the light of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and in view of the facts of the case, we are not convinced with the submissions made by the appellants to admit the Letters Patent Appeal. The letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed. 11. Mr. Golegaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants requested to stay the order passed by the learned Single Judge for a period of two weeks. Mr. Dhorde,learned counsel appearing for respondent-Sandeep opposed the request made by 8 L.P.A.No. 222.10 the counsel. We are not convinced to grant such relief to the appellants. Therefore, prayer stands rejected. Sd/- Sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] MTK