- (1.)). This writ petition under art. 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgments and orders dated 25/09/1989, and 1/03/1990, passed by the Presiding Officer, College Tribunal, Pune/ shivaji University, Pune in Appeal No. 11/89 (S ).
(2.)THE respondent No. 1 was appointed as part-time lecturer in English subject on 18/07/1987. The appointment order clearly mentions that the appointment is on probation upto 2 academic years, i. e. . 1987-88 and 1988-89. The petitioners terminated the services of the Respondent No. 1 by letter dated 29/03/1989 with effect from 29. 6. 1989. which is before the expiry of two years' probation period. On perusal of the termination letter, no doubt the same is termination simpliciter. Nonetheless, the respondent No. 1 challenged the action of the petitioner by way of statutory appeal before the College Tribunal. The petitioners resisted the appeal preferred by the respondent No. 1 and justified the termination of the respondent No. 1 on the ground that his performance was unsatisfactory for the relevant period. That aspect has been considered by the College tribunal in the impugned judgment and order and the stand taken on behalf of the petitioner has been rejected. In other words, the Tribunal has found that the termination was illegal, as there was no valid reason for terminating the services of respondent No. 1. Against that decision, the petitioner had filed writ petition in this Court, being Writ Petition No. 5282/ 1989. However, it appears that the said writ petition was withdrawn on 18/12/1989. In the memo of writ petition, paragraph IX, the order passed on that writ petition has been reproduced, which reads thus : "allowed to be withdrawn to approach the Tribunal in regard to the alleged factual errors in its judgment. " copy of the order as passed by this Court has not been produced, except what is reproduced in the memo of writ petition, referred to above. Assuming that the petitioner had liberty to file the present writ petition, we would proceed to decide the matter on merits. Be that as it may, after withdrawing the earlier writ petition, the petitioner moved the College tribunal for correction of the alleged factual errors in the judgment dated 25/09/1989. The Tribunal has found that there were no factual errors in its earlier judgment and, accordingly, directed issuance of the original judgment again to the petitioner for compliance. That order was passed on 1/03/1990, which is also subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.
(3.)MR. Railkar, for the petitioners, contends that respondent No. 1 was appointed on probation basis and, therefore, it was open to the petitioners to terminate his services at any time before completion of the two years' probation period without assigning any reason. He further submits that the termination order is simpliciter termination of the respondent No. 1 and it has not attached any stigma, for which reason the Tribunal could not have interfered with the said termination order. He submits that the petitioner was not required to assign any reason even before the Tribunal when the termination order was under challenge before that forum, as it was not obliged to give any reason while terminating the services of respondent No. 1. He further submits that in any case the petitioner had produced ample material to justify the termination order on the ground that the performance of respondent No. 1 during the relevant time was found to be unsatisfactory and that is a subjective satisfaction reached by the appropriate authority, which cannot be a matter of adjudication before the tribunal. He has placed reliance on the unreported decision of this Court in the case of The Head Mistress, Sister Nivedita English Medium School and another v. Shri Kodanipani R. Kulkarni, to buttress the above submissions.