AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.)
All the three Writ Appeals have been filed against the common order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in a batch of three Writ Petitions, dated 12.11.2025.
W.A.(MD)No.3252 of 2025 had been filed by the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.14031 of 2021, aggrieved by the dismissal of the said Writ Petition.
W.A.(MD)No.3253 of 2025 had been filed by the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.14030 of 2021 aggrieved by the dismissal of the said Writ Petition.
W.A.(MD)No.3254 of 2025 had been filed by the third respondent in W.P.(MD)No.17027 of 2021 aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the said Writ Petition.
All the Writ Appeals have been filed by Kshatriya Nadar Girls' Higher Secondary School. They had filed W.P.(MD)Nos.14030 of 2021 and 14031 of 2021 in the nature of a Mandamus and in the nature of a Certiorari, respectively, seeking approval of a proposal submitted by them on 18.01.2021 against the third respondent therein/G.Ariyamala by which proposal, they had not extended the probation for G.Ariyamala and also to quash the proceedings of the Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram, dated 27.07.2021 by which proceedings, the School Management was directed to permit G.Ariyamala to continue in service in their School. Both the Writ Appeals have been dismissed necessitating filing of two Writ Appeals.
Independent of these Writ Petitions, G.Ariyamala filed W.P(MD)No.17027 of 2021 in the nature of a Mandamus seeking permission to sign in the attendance register from 05.03.2021 and to implement the order of the Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram, who had directed continuance of her service under the School run by the appellant herein.
Since all the facts were interconnected, the learned Single Judge had taken up all the three Writ Petitions together and had rendered a common order, dated 12.11.2025 dismissing the Writ Petitions filed by the Management and allowing the Writ Petition filed by the Teacher, G.Ariyamala.
It is to be seen that G.Ariyamala, is said to have been working in the appellant School even prior to issuance of appointment order on 04.03.2019, as a management staff. She was, however, appointed as Physical Education Teacher by appointment order, dated 04.03.2019. This is the only appointment order issued in her favour. Her probation should have been declared after a period of two years and had not been declared. On the other hand, before the end of two years, on 12.01.2021, the Management had forwarded a proposal to the Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram, terminating the service of G.Ariyamala.
It was the case of G.Ariyamala that this particular communication by the Management to the Chief Educational Officer had not been communicated to her. She claimed that non-declaration of probation was arbitrary and illegal and vindictive.
The Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram had refused to accept the proposal and had directed the School authorities to recognize her service. This communication had been put to challenge by the erstwhile management before the learned Single Judge.
The learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out Rule 15-A of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1972, which related to declaration of probation of a Teacher, who had been appointed. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that a probationer remains on probation and not as regular staff necessitating initiation of disciplinary proceedings before termination.
The fact that probation had not been declared is neither denied nor disputed. The fact that the proposal terminating the probation before the period of two years was forwarded is also neither denied or disputed. The only issue before this Court and also before the learned Single Judge is whether this procedure terminating the service before declaration of probation within a period of two years is permissible.
The learned Counsel for the appellant relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1980) 3 SCC 428 in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission and others -vs.- Dr.Md.S.Iskender Ali, in which a Three Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held in categorical terms that termination of temporary service of a probationer by an innocuous order is in accordance with the terms of appointment and Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India is not attracted. It was further held that motive for termination is immaterial. It was also held that the Court should not ordinarily go into the office files to find out any possible stigma.
In that case, the respondent therein was informed that he had been selected for a temporary post as Medical Officer in the appellant organisation. During the period of probation, there were certain reports against him. After a period of one year, his probation was extended for another six months. There was no order either confirming or extending the period of probation. Thereafter, the order of termination was issued to him stating that his services were terminated with effect from the date of service of the order. This order was put to challenge. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as follows:
“9....... It is well settled by a long course of decisions of this Court that in the case of a probationer or a temporary employee, who has no right to the post, such a termination of his services is valid and does not attract the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution. ......”
The learned Counsel further relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1997) 2 SCC 191, in the case of Kunwar Arun Kumar -vs.- U.P.Hill Electronics Corporation Limited and Others, wherein, it had been held that termination of service for non-satisfactory performance of a probationer was held not stigma. It had been held as follows:
“5........ During the period of probation, the authorities are entitled to assess the suitability of the candidates and if it is found that the candidate is not suitable to remain in service they are entitled to record a finding of unsatisfactory performance of the work and duties during the period of probation. Under these circumstances, necessarily the appointing authority has to look into the performance of the work and duties during the period of probation and if they record a finding that during that probation period, the work and performance of the duties were unsatisfactory, they are entitled to terminate the service in terms of the letter of appointment without conducting any enquiry. .......”
The learned Counsel for the appellant further relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2018) 15 SCC 73 in the case of Director, Aryabhatta Research Institute of Observational Science (ARIES) -vs.-Devendra Joshi and others, wherein again, it had been held that an innocuous order terminating the service at the end of probation period does not carry any stigma.
The learned Counsel for the appellant further placed reliance on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in (2010) 3 MLJ 651, in the case of Government of Tamil Nadu by Secretary -vs.-Prof.Dr.S.Boopathiraj and another, wherein, in paragraph No.15, it had been held as follows:
“15.All the above would make it evident that the first respondent who was actually on his probation period of one year, was terminated since his service during that period was not found satisfactory, and he was not fit to be appointed to the permanent post. That apart, the termination order did not contain any imputation, stigma, penal or punitive consequences, and it was only a simpliciter. Under the circumstances, the contention put forth by the first respondent's side that he did not know the enquiry to be conducted and no opportunity of being heard was given to him would not at all arise.”
To buttress his arguments on the legal issue, as stated, the learned Counsel for the appellant was emphatic that since the respondent Teacher had been issued with an order terminating her service before the end of the period of probation, no stigma was attached and the appellant was well within their right to issue such an order. It was also contended that Article 311(2) would not apply. In the order terminating the probationer, it had been stated that her services were not satisfactory and therefore, her services were terminated. This is an innocuous order, but the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that such an innocuous order does not carry any stigma.
The learned Single Judge had relied on three separate judgments which were relied on even before us by the learned Counsel for the respondent/Teacher. The first judgment was the one reported in 1996 (II) CTC 577 in the case of M.Rukmani Devi -vs.- The Chief Educational Officer and two others. In that case, the termination of service was set aside, since notice was not given before the order of termination came to be passed against a Teacher whose services had been regularised. This judgment has no application to the facts of this case, since in this case, the respondent/Teacher was a probationer and not a regular employee.
The second judgment was the one reported in 2002 (4) CTC 129 in the case of R.V.Thevar Memorial Girls High School, Cholapuram -vs.-the Director of School Education and four others, again related to promotion of a Teacher. In that case, again the concerned delinquent was not terminated during probation. The Teacher's services had been regularised.
It had been found that prior permission was not obtained before passing an order terminating the service. In the instant case, the respondent Teacher was only on probation and there could be no quarrel that if services are not satisfactory during the period of probation, the services could be terminated.
The third judgment was the one reported in 2003 (2) CTC 175 in the case of Secretary, School of Committee, Thiruvalluvar Higher Secondary Secondary -vs.- the Government of Tamil Nadu and others, again relating to charges issued to a delinquent, who had been appointed in 1978 and charge memorandum was issued in the year 1984 after six years on various grounds. Naturally, the procedure under law will have to be followed. Again, the facts are distinguishable.
In the instant case, as indicated above, the respondent/Teacher was only a probationer and once services are found unsatisfactory, the services can be terminated. It does not create any stigma on the respondent. We hold that the learned Single Judge has misdirected himself between the issue of termination of a probationer and termination of a regular employee, wherein, the procedure as contemplated under law, ie., issuance of show cause notice, examination of explanation, framing of charges, issuance of charge memo, again examination of statement of defence, enquiry to be conducted by granting adequate opportunity and thereafter, orders to be passed, are required to be followed.
In the instant case, the services of the respondent was terminated during the period of probation before completion of two years and before declaration of probation. The judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred supra, by the learned Counsel for the appellant directly applies to the case on hand.
We, therefore, have no hesitation to hold that all the three appeals have to be allowed and they are accordingly allowed. The orders of the learned Single Judge which are under challenge, in W.P.(MD)Nos.14030 and 14031 of 2021 and 17027 of 2021 are set aside. We uphold the order of termination of service of the respondent/Teacher.
In the result, the Writ Appeals are allowed and W.P.(MD)Nos. 14030 and 14031 of 2021 are allowed and W.P.(MD)No.17027 of 2021 is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.