VIJAYKUMAR WAMAN WAKALEversusTHE SECRETARY/ PRESIDENT/TRUSTEE ,ST. PHILOMENA SCHOOL TRUST

                                                                        901.as.wp.2890.2010 @.doc




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
       Digitally
                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
       signed by
       VINA
VINA   ARVIND
ARVIND KHADPE                          WRIT PETITION NO. 2890 OF 2010
KHADPE Date:
       2026.09.23
       18:17:16
       +0530

                    Vijaykumar Waman Wakale                       … Petitioner
                           Versus
                    The Secretary / President / Trustee
                    St. Philomena School Trust                    … Respondents

                                                    ***
                    Mr. Narendra V. Bandiwadekar, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Vinayak R.
                    Kumbhar, Mr. Rajendra B. Khaire i/b. Ms. Ashiwini N. Bandiwadekar
                    for the Petitioner.
                    Mr. Ashok G. Kothari for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
                                                    ***
                                                       CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
                                                           DATE    : 23 SEPTEMBER, 2026
                    P.C. :

                    1.       Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

                    2.       The Petitioner – employee is challenging the order dated
                    21.01.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Additional School
                    Tribunal, Navi Mumbai in Appeal No.11 of 2009. By the said
                    impugned order, the Petitioner’s Appeal challenging the order of
                    termination with effect from 14.10.2006 is dismissed.

                    3.       The Petitioner filed the said Appeal contending inter alia that
                    he was appointed as Shikshan Sevak with effect from 03.02.2001 for
                    a period of three years on clear and permanent vacancy. He
                    contended that he worked sincerely, however, the Respondent –
                    Management harassed him and ultimately terminated his service
                    illegally. The Respondent – Management contested the Appeal on


                    Vina Khadpe                            1
                                                    901.as.wp.2890.2010 @.doc




merits. The Tribunal has dismissed the same on merits, on
appreciation of evidence, holding that Petitioner could not prove that
the impugned termination letter dated 14.10.2006 was illegal and
further holding that the Petitioner was not entitled to any relief.

4.     Learned   Senior   Advocate    appearing    for     the    Petitioner
submitted that the Petitioner was admittedly appointed on probation
of three years as Shikshan Sevak and during his probation period, the
Petitioner has been terminated without following the provisions of
Section 5(3) of Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions
of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules 1981 (“the said Act” and
“the said Rules” for short). He submitted that it was necessary for the
Management to either give him one month notice or salary /
honorarium of one month in lieu of notice and he could not have
been terminated otherwise. He submitted that from the impugned
order, the termination appears to be oral termination. He has relied
on the following Judgments in support of     his contention that the
notice is required to be given one month in advance, before
termination in case of probation.

i) Progressive Education Society Hinghanghat and ors Vs. Nitin
Krishnarao Nimbalkar and ors. 2006(4) Mh.L.J. 747

ii) Rehana Begum d/o SK. Safdar Vs. Khwaja Baba Urdu Education
Society , Amaravati 2009(3) Mh.L.J. 665




5.     On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent –


Vina Khadpe                            2
                                                  901.as.wp.2890.2010 @.doc




Management invited the Court’s attention to the averments made by
the Petitioner in his Appeal Memo, especially paragraph 8, where the
Petitioner has himself stated that the Management had issued notice
dated 14.10.2006 terminating his service, however, the Petitioner did
not accept the said termination letter. He has also invited the Court’s
attention to a specific contention raised by the Management in the
written statement before the Tribunal (in paragraph-15 thereof) that
there was written termination order, tendered to the Appellant but it
was not accepted. He pointed out that allegation of oral termination
was strongly denied. He submitted that there is no reason to interfere
in detailed and well reasoned impugned order.

6.     I have considered the rival submissions and perused the
impugned order.

7.     The Tribunal has considered the contentions in detail. Record
shows that this Court has not granted any interim relief to the
Petitioner during the pendency of the Petition.

8.     Considering that the Petitioner himself in his Appeal memo has
accepted the factual position that the notice was issued on
14.10.2006 terminating his service, the contention that it was an oral
termination and therefore not in conformity with Section 5(3) of the
said Act, has no merit.

9.     Learned Counsel for the Respondent has placed on record
copies of termination order dated 14.10.2006 as well as the cheque
of the same date of Rs.4000 drawn in the name of the Petitioner
along with postal receipt. As already noted above, the Petitioner in

Vina Khadpe                          3
                                                  901.as.wp.2890.2010 @.doc




his appeal memo has admitted that the Management had issued
notice dated 14.10.2006 terminating his service. Therefore, it is clear
that the Petitioner was not only issued a written termination order
but one month’s honorarium in lieu of notice was also sent. Refusal of
the same by Petitioner is of no consequence. Therefore section 5(3) of
the said Act is complied by the Respondent Management.

10.    In the teeth of factual backdrop, the judgments relied upon by
learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner would not apply and help
the Petitioner in principle. The factual matrix of the present case is
clearly distinguishable, inasmuch as the written termination order
alongwith was tendered/issued to Petitioner along with one month’s
honorarium.

11.    Viewed in the light of what has been observed above, when the
impugned order is perused, it is seen that during the period of
probation, the Respondent – Management had issued various memos
to the Petitioner regarding his unsatisfactory work. Apology letters
written by the Petitioner are also on record (produced with affidavit
in reply) which clearly indicate that, during the probation period, the
Petitioner had clearly admitted his unsatisfactory work.

12.    It has also come on record that the Petitioner resorted to
sending letters to Ministers and Government Authorities and also sat
on hunger strike, which are nothing short of pressurizing tactics.

13.    The Respondent – Management by filing an Affidavit-in-Reply,
has brought on record the copies of various memos issued to the
Petitioner. It has come on record that the Petitioner indulged in

Vina Khadpe                           4
                                                   901.as.wp.2890.2010 @.doc




severely punishing the students, for which parents complained in
writing. Explanation was sought and the Petitioner had given written
apology letter dated 28.09.2006, asking for forgiveness for punishing
the students by hitting them on their necks and between the thighs
with a hard stick. There are other apology letters issued by the
Petitioner also on record, dated 30.08.2006, 05.10.2006, 07.10.2006.

14.      Therefore, clear picture emerging is that the Respondent
Management was not satisfied with the work of the Petitioner. The
termination letter dated 14.10.2006 is plain termination without
casting any stigma.

15.      In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for reasons
indicated above, overall, the view taken by the Tribunal is the most
probable view. No perversity is found in the impugned order. Hence
no interference is required.

16.      Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to
costs.

17.      All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
QR verifiable copy of this order.

                                              (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)




Vina Khadpe                            5