1. Heard Mr.Shirish Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Maulin G. Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent No.1, appears on caveat.
2. The petitioners have prayed for below mentioned reliefs :
"A. The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 7.7.2011 passed by the Gujarat Affiliated Colleges Services Tribunal in Application No.21/2006 and also in Review Application No.3/2011 at Annexure L and Annexure N.
B. Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the order dated 7.7.2011 passed by the Gujarat Affiliated Colleges Services Tribunal in Application No.21/2006 and also in Review Application No.3/2011 at Annexure L and Annexure N."
3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders dated 6.6.2011 passed in Application No.21/2006 as well as the order passed in Review Application No.3/2011 by Gujarat Affiliated Colleges Services Tribunal.
4. By the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the petitioner - College Management against present respondent terminating her services.
5. So far as the facts of present case are concerned, it emerges from the record that vide order dated 21.4.2006, the petitioner - college terminated the service of present respondent. Aggrieved by the said termination order, the respondent herein preferred Application No.21/2006 before the learned Tribunal. Initially, the learned Tribunal granted ex-parte ad-interim relief against the termination order. However, subsequent to the bi-partite hearing, the order granting the ad-interim relief was vacated. Thereafter, upon adjudication of the application, the learned Tribunal concluded that the termination of the respondent was not brought into effect after following the prescribed procedure under Section 14 of the Act and that therefore, the learned Tribunal has set aside the said termination order.
6. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Tribunal, the petitioner is before this Court.
7. Mr.Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.1 was appointed as Teacher purely on probation and that therefore, it was not obligatory for the petitioner - college to conduct regular departmental inquiry against the respondent before terminating her service. He also submitted, relying on the decision in the case of Kamlesh R. Brahmbhatt v. Mahemdabad Education Society, reported in 2005 (3) GLH 53, that in case of person, who is on probation, the provisions under Section 14 would not be applicable and that therefore, the conclusion recorded by the Tribunal is unjustified inasmuch as the Tribunal has proceeded on the premise that the termination deserves to be set aside because it was not brought into effect after following the prescribed procedure under Section 14 of the Act. He also submitted that the respondent herein was employed in other college, in the interregnum, however, said factual aspect was suppressed by the respondent before the Tribunal. He also submitted that though the petitioner Institution had brought the said factual aspect on record by filing pursis dated 28.6.2011, the Tribunal failed to consider the said aspect and that therefore, the petitioners were constrained to move the Review Application also. Mr.Joshi submitted that the decision of the Tribunal is contrary to settled legal position and also contrary to the evidence on record. Relying upon the appointment letter dated 28.3.2004 in support of his submission, he submitted that respondent was, at the relevant time, was engaged on probation basis. In support of his submission, petitioner was not satisfactory or not upto the mark, Mr.Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners heavily relied on the communication - notice dated 6.3.2006.
8. Mr.
Pandya, learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposing the petition submitted that at the relevant time, the respondent was not working on probation basis, but she had acquired the status of permanent employee and that therefore, the provisions under Section 14 of the Act were applicable and admittedly, the procedure prescribed under the said Section was not followed. He vehemently supported the decision of the learned Tribunal. In support of his submission, he relied upon on the decision in case of Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satvendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and Ors., reported in AIR 1999 SC 983, learned counsel for the respondent could not effectively deal with the petitioners' claim that after the termination of the petitioner - college, the respondent was engaged in another educational institution. He, however, submitted that she was engaged for a period of 7 months. Any material in support of such claim has not been placed on record and that the said aspect was not disclosed by the respondent before the Tribunal.
9. Having regard to the material on record and the contentions raised by the contesting parties and upon considering the order passed by the learned Tribunal, it appears that the matter requires proper and detailed consideration. Therefore, below mentioned order is passed :
Rule.
By way of interim relief, the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 7.7.2011 passed by the Tribunal is stayed.
It will be permissible to the petitioners to move appropriate application in the week beginning from 24.12.2012, if by the time the petition is not taken up for final hearing.
(K.
M. THAKER, J.) (vipul) Top