W.P. No.1357/2007 :: 1 :: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1357 OF 2007 1. Gurudatta Vidya Prasarak Mandal, Dhule, Abhiyanta Nagar, Deopur, Dhule through its Chairman 2. Head Master, Adarsha Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Kurkhali, Tal. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule … PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. Pravin Tumdusingh Chaudhari, Age 35 years, Occ. Nil, R/o Kalamsari, Tal. Shirpur, Dist.Dhule 2. Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Dhule. Dist. Dhule 3. Shri Narayan Sukdeo Pawar, C/o Adarsha Madhyamik Vidyalay, Kurkhali, Tal. Shirpur, Dist.Dhule … RESPONDENTS ....... Ms Sanyukta N. Suryawanshi, Advocate with Mr. Sanket N. Suryawanshi, Advocates for petitioners Mr. A.R. Syed, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. R.J. Godbole, Advocate for respondent No.3 ....… 2025:BHC-AUG:38069 W.P. No.1357/2007 :: 2 :: CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J. DATED : 28th November, 2025 J U D G M E N T : 1. By this petition, the petitioners raise an exception to the order dated 21/12/2006, rendered by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Dhule in Appeal No.DHL 36/2003. 2. Factual matrix leading to the filing of this petition is as under : The petitioner management, in the wake of qualification possessed by respondent No.1 i.e. M.A., B.Ed. (Phy.), was appointed on 5/6/2000 as an Assistant Teacher. Preceded by the initial appointment order, a subsequent appointment order was issued on 26/6/2001 for one academic year and allowed to work till 1/5/2002. After reopening of the school on commencement of the academic year i.e. 11/6/2002, the management terminated the services of the respondent No.1 employee. Aggrieved by the said termination, the employee approached to the School Tribunal by presenting an appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. After considering the rival submissions, the School W.P. No.1357/2007 :: 3 :: Tribunal allowed the appeal presented by the employee, setting aside the order of termination with reinstatement and full back wages from thedate of filing of the appeal till the reinstatement. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the appointment orders issued in favour of the employee were for fixed period. As such, the claim for permanency ought not to have been considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has ignored the settled legal position that the temporary employee has no right to the post, therefore, there was no occasion to grant permanency to the employee, resulting into failure of justice. 4. Although the appointment orders were for specific period i.e. on year to year basis, and in absence of the approval to the services of the employee, there was no reason to uphold the claim of the employee. In the aforesaid backdrop, the learned counsel for the petitioners prayed to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 employee has submitted that, the fact of issuing the appointment orders indicates that the appointment was against sanctioned post. Having completed the period as indicated in the appointment orders, the employee was entitled for the statutory protections W.P. No.1357/2007 :: 4 :: those are annihilated by the management while terminating the services. The School Tribunal, while appreciating these aspects, has rightly allowed the appeal and as such, the same deserves to be endorsed. 6. Upon hearing the litigating sides and perusal of the material made available on record, it is evident that the management is duly recognized as contemplated under Section 21 of the MEPS Act. The employee was also duly qualified for the post of Assistant Teacher. The appointment was made on a clear and permanent vacancy. Having continued it for academic years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002, eventually the employee gets the status of a permanent teacher. Once the employee acquires the status of permanency, the statutory protections are conferred upon such employees. As a matter of fact, there is nothing on record to indicate that, before issuing the order of termination, the necessary recourse was taken by the petitioner management. 7. The assertion of the petitioner management that the respondent employee was appointed on the reserved category meant for Scheduled Caste candidate does not warrant consideration since the appointment order does not indicate any stipulation to that effect. So far as the refusal of approval to the W.P. No.1357/2007 :: 5 :: services of the respondent No.1 employee is concerned, the same was on solitary ground that there is backlog of reserved category which the management has not filled in, cannot be a reason for issuing the termination order. 8. Considering the aforesaid record, the termination order which is de hors the statutory provisions, more particularly Rule 28(1) of the MEPS Rules, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the termination order is illegal and liable to be set aside. 9. In the light of the aforesaid aspects, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has considered the material on record in its proper perspective and the termination order is held to be unsustainable, which does not warrant consideration. Resultantly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs. (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.) fmp/-