Though at last the poster seems to have taken refuge in the karmic theory out of her frustration, the most pertinent issues arising in the thread still remain to be discussed are -
A) Whether any continuous and statutory leave of absence of an employee such as maternity leave would affect his/her continuity of service?
B) What is the impact of such longer spell of authorized leave particularly on the probationary status of the employee concerned?
The answer for issue-A is that any leave of absence granted by the employer to his employee under the service regulations or the provisions of any statute applicable, whether with or without wages/salary, is to be construed as duty only irrespective of its duration or type. Maternity Leave is a statutory leave with wages/salary. Hence by implication ML entitles an employee to all service benefits other than the monetary effect of annual increment falling due during the leave period. Therefore, maternity leave will not affect the service continuity of the concerned employee.
Regarding issue-B, probationary period, in employment parlance,is a specific stretch of period of time during which the character and abilities of a new employee to the role or job assigned to on his/her placement in the organization is tested or observed by the employer. At the end of the period, the employer will take a decision whether to continue his/her services or not based on his/her performance during such period.If the performance is okay, there will be a declaration to the effect that the individual has completed the period of probation successfully and confirmation on the job in writing. Otherwise,either his probation would be extended further or his services would be terminated as provided for in the contract of service. Any authorized longer spell of leave like M.L availed of by the employee during the course of probationary period would naturally shorten it and therefore the proportionate extension of the period becomes imperative.
Coming to the comments of our learned friend Mr.Saswata Banerjee, I am afraid whether it reflects the management's/employer's perspective alone. I am in agreement with him only to the extent that there is nothing in Law compelling an employer to confirm a probationer after completion of the probationary period and give him a permanent job. But, I am not able to accept that the School is free to tell the employee to be at home on the expiry of her ML just because it has interrupted the probationary period and they don't wish to employ her and free to give a service break after ML and reemploy during the next academic year. I don't think that such a stand can be substantiated both legally and ethically for it would defeat the very purpose of the Maternity Benefit Act,1961 and make a mockery of the concept of probationary status of employees.
Regarding the School's observation cited by the poster in the last one, it is none of the business of the Education Department to question the head count unless the school is aided by Govt. funds. Even otherwise, since the employee is on statutory M.L and after the expiry of the ML she is going to be working in extended period of probation, how comes the question of head count? Simply put, the school does not want to pay for the Statutory M.L.- that's all.
At times, excessive belief in Karmic Theory renders the suppressed remain docile to the core!