wp 3279-2015.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3279 OF 2015 Ku. Heera Chakradhar Gandait, Aged 44 years, Occupation-Nil, R/o. C/o. Shri. N.K. Lakde, At Dorli, Post- Wadadha, Tah- Armori, Dist-Gadchiroli. … PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Prerna Education Society, Wadadha, Tah- Armori, Dist- Gadchiroli, through its Secretary. 2. Kisan Vidyalaya and Junior College, Wadadha, Tah- Armori, Dist- Gadchiroli, through its Headmaster 3. The Education Officer (Sec.), Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli. … RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri P.N. Shende, Advocate for petitioner Shri A.Z. Jibhkate, Advocate for respondent No.1 Shri N.S. Autkar, AGP for respondent No.3/State ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL , J. DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 31.08.2026 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 03.09.2026 JUDGMENT 2026:BHC-NAG:11646 wp 3279-2015.odt 2 1. Heard. 2. By this petition, challenge is to the judgment and order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Chandrapur in Appeal No. STC/08/2009 decided on 20.11.2014, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner employee was dismissed. 3. The brief facts of the case can be summarized as under: According to the petitioner, the respondent-Management had issued the advertisement in one weekly newspaper on or before 10.06.1996 and in pursuance of the same, as she was possessing qualification as B.A. in Marathi Literature and B.P.Ed., applied for the post. Accordingly, the respondent-Management, by following due procedure of law, has appointed her in the school vide appointment order dated 20.06.1996. It is her further submission that she has continued in service up to year 2006. But, by oral termination dated 03.07.2006, her services were wp 3279-2015.odt 3 terminated without following due procedure of law, and therefore, she has filed appeal before the School Tribunal against the oral termination. 4. The respondent-Management appeared before the Tribunal and denied of issuance of any advertisement as alleged by the present petitioner. All the documents which were filed by the petitioner were alleged to be falsely prepared by petitioner and therefore, same were denied. 5. According to the respondent-Management, they have never issued any advertisement for the post of Physical Education Teacher in the respondent-School. The appointment order which was filed by the petitioner-employee was denied. According to them, petitioner never rendered any service in the school. To substantiate this fact, also filed muster roll before the School Tribunal and stated that petitioner never worked in school as alleged in the appeal. wp 3279-2015.odt 4 6. The learned School Tribunal initially by framing the preliminary issue as to whether the appointment of the present petitioner was made as per Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (in short “the MEPS Act”) or not, has decided the issue and by holding that appointment of the petitioner was not in consonance with Section 5 of the MEPS Act, by order dated 02.09.2011, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner employee. The said order was under challenge in Writ Petition No. 5576 of 2011 before this Court. 7. This Court, without entering into the merits of the said order, by relying upon the judgment of Division Bench in the case of Sadhana Janardhan Jadhav vs. Pratibha Patil Mahila Mahamandal and others, reported in 2013 (2) MH.L.J. 884, by holding that Tribunal shall consider all the issues which arose in the matteron its own merits, remanded back the proceeding to the School Tribunal to decide the same on its own merits. wp 3279-2015.odt 5 8. The learned Tribunal thereafter, by granting hearing opportunity to both the parties, by judgment dated 20.11.2014, decided the appeal. The learned Tribunal while deciding appeal and to decide all the issues together framed the issue whether the appointment of the petitioner was made under Section 5 (2) of the MEPS Act? And second issue whether the termination order dated 03.07.2006 passed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioner is proper and legal? 9. The learned Tribunal, in pursuance of the issues framed in the appeal, has held that the respondent-Management has produced on record the muster roll covering the entire tenure of the petitioner in the school to demonstrate the fact that the muster roll nowhere shows the signature of the petitioner. So also the most relevant document, i.e. Attendance Register and salary received by petitioner from respondent-Management during her service tenure are not produced on record by the petitioner. Therefore, on the basis of evidence which are available on record reached to the conclusion that appointment of the petitioner was wp 3279-2015.odt 6 not made as per Section 5 (2) of the MEPS Act. 10. It is further recorded by the School Tribunal that as the petitioner failed to demonstrate that she has been appointed by following due procedure of law and failed to produce on record relevant documentary evidence dismissed the appeal. 11. The petitioner approached before this Court has made attempt to demonstrate that the respondent-Management, while filing their reply to the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal as there was almost three years delay in filing the appeal, has made averment in their reply that petitioner was in employment of respondent No.2-School. However, the copy of the said reply was not filed in the present petition. During the course of argument, only it was pointed out by the petitioner. On the basis of said reply, it is the submission of the petitioner that once the Management accepted that he was appointed in the school, the Management cannot take stand that petitioner has never worked in school. He has further stated that before School wp 3279-2015.odt 7 Tribunal, documents pertaining to her educational qualification, appointment order and one experience certificate signed by the Principal of the college was produced. The said documents according to her are sufficient to demonstrate that she has been appointed in the school. 12. The learned Counsel for the respondent- Management are firm on their stand that petitioner was never appointed in the school, no advertisement was issued as alleged by the petitioner, nor they have issued any appointment order to the petitioner. So also as per their record, there is no entry to the fact that petitioner has ever rendered service in the school. 13. In the background of this submission of the parties, the issue which is arose in the present matter as to whether the petitioner was appointed in the school and if she was appointed, then whether the procedure as contemplated under Section 5 (2) of the MEPS Act was followed in the present matter or not. wp 3279-2015.odt 8 14. It would be relevant to note that as per the settled principles of law, particularly as per the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Priyadarshini Education Trustand others vs. Ratis (Rafia) Bano d/o Abdul Rasheed and others, reported in 2007 SCC OnLine Bombay 720, this Court has held that while determining the appointment, it is necessary to verify the appointment was made by following due procedure of law. Accordingly, the term “duly appointed, in the manner prescribed,” was clarified by observing that it means a person who is eligible for appointment and who is selected by due process of selection, i.e. by competition amongst all eligible and desirous candidates, and who is appointed on a permanent vacant post. In other words, inviting applications, as also holding of screening tests, enabling all eligible and desirous candidates to compete for selection and appointment, is a must. 15. In a further judgment of Coordinate Bench in the case of Rayat Shikshan Sanstha and another vs. Yashwant Dattatray Shinde, reported in 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 859, it is wp 3279-2015.odt 9 held that burden of establishing that the appointment was made on a clear and permanent post that too by following the procedure laid down under the Act and Rules is on the appellant and not on the management. 16. In view of above said judgment of this Court, I have perused the rival submissions of the parties in the matter. In the present case, from perusal of the petition as well as appeal memo, the submission of the petitioner is that at the time of his appointment, one advertisement was issued in a weekly newspaper without disclosing the date of advertisement, name of newspaper, and further, no copy of the advertisement was placed on record. 17. The petitioner further failed to demonstrate that at the time of appointment whether the interviews were conducted or not, and how he was appointed on the post of a Physical Education Teacher, particularly when the school was newly started and the post of Physical Education Teacher was not wp 3279-2015.odt 10 sanctioned at the relevant time. As such, the petitioner failed to demonstrate the basic facts along with the documents before this Court in the matter. He is only relying upon his statement in the appeal memo without disclosing any document. 18. It will be again relevant to note that as per the policy framed by State Government long back in the year 1987, it is prescribed that school is bound to appoint one Physical Education Teacher if strength of the school is upto 250 pupils. But in the present case, it is not pointed out that the strength of the student when it was newly started there were 250 pupils. Hence, post of Physical Education Teacher cannot be said to be available at relevant time. So also, no clarification in that regard made by petitioner in the matter. 19. It would be necessary to mention that the employee who come forward with the case that he was duly qualified for being appointed or there exist a permanent vacancy and his appointment was made in the manner prescribed under the Act wp 3279-2015.odt 11 and Rules, then he has to at least demonstrate the same by placing on record the relevant documents. Only on the basis of averment made in the appeal memo without disclosing the documents in support thereof cannot be considered by this Court. Hence, the petitioner who failed to produce the basic documents on record, cannot be said to have been appointed by following due procedure of law in the school. 20. It would be further pertinent to note that in the cases where employee does not possess any document, then best evidence would be details of salary for the work which he has rendered in the school. However, no such document is placed on record. The learned School Tribunal, therefore, rightly considered this aspect and held that as the material documents are not placed on record by the petitioner, the submission of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 21. In the present matter, on the contrary, the respondent-Management has placed on record before the wp 3279-2015.odt 12 Tribunal the attendance register to demonstrate that petitioner has never worked in the school. The same evidence was not rebutted by the petitioner by filing any counter evidence or affidavit on record. No document except the experience certificate of the Headmaster obtained by her and one stray admission of the respondent while submitting their reply to the application for condonation of delay is relied upon by the petitioner. In my considered opinion, the document on the basis of which petitioner is stating that her appointment was made by following due procedure of law cannot be accepted by any stretch of imagination. 22. In the present appeal, there are no material documents made available to establish the fact that petitioner was appointed by following due procedure of law. The post on which he was appointed was a clear and permanent vacant post, the fact whether the advertisement was issued or not is also not clarified in the matter by petitioner. So also, the procedure which is required to be followed as contemplated under Section 5 read wp 3279-2015.odt 13 with Rule 9 of the MEPS Rules also not seen to be followed in the matter. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that petitioner failed to demonstrate that his appointment was made by following due procedure of law. 23. In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The present petition stand dismissed. No order as to the costs. (PRAVIN S. PATIL J.) R.S. Sahare Signed by: Mrs. Ranjana Sahare Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 03/09/2026 18:57:04