JUDGMENT :- Heard. 2. The appellant was initially appointed as an Asstt. Teacher. On 3rd June, 1997 the appellant came to be appointed on Probation. His services came to be terminated on 1-4-1999. It was a simpliciter termination. The appellant challenged the same before the School Tribunal. The School Tribunal dismissed the same on 13th June, 2000. This was challenged by filing writ petition and the learned Single Judge by order dated 3-10-2000 dismissed the said petition. The said order is challenged here. 3. It is submitted that there could have been no termination without any enquiry. For the said proposition reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2000 SC 1080 , between V. P. Ahuja vs. State of Punjab and others. In the said case it was held that if the order for termination is punitive in nature, then enquiry is necessary even in the case of probationer. The order in that case itself mentioned that the petitioner failed in his duties administratively and technically. Hence it was stigmatic. However, in the present case, it was simplicter termination and hence this has no application. The learned counsel for the appellant then relied upon another judgment of the Apex Court reported in 1990( 1) Bom.C.R. 97, between Dr. Mrs. Sumati P. Shere vs. Union of India and others. It was a case where the appointment was made on adhoc basis and thereafter on the ground of unsatisfactory performance it came to be terminated. The petitioner served for a long time but never informed about this. It was held that it was arbitrary in nature. We cannot apply this here. In the present case, there was a complaint against this appellant on 6-7-1998 and it was noted that the work of the appellant was not satisfactory. This was during the probation period. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant then tried to contend that it was a termination by the Principal of the school and not by the management of the school. The learned Single Judge noted that a resolution was passed by the management to terminate the services of the petitioner and the resolution was given effect to by the principal. Whether there was a mention made about the said resolution in the written statement or not is not material. The resolution was produced on record. The learned Single Judge noted that a resolution was passed by the management to terminate the services of the petitioner and the resolution was given effect to by the principal. Whether there was a mention made about the said resolution in the written statement or not is not material. The resolution was produced on record. Therefore, the learned Single Judge is right in turning down the said contention. We find no error in the order. Appeal dismissed.