1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR W.P. No. 1632 of 2011 Sharad Gramin Vikas Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha and another VERSUS Chandrakant G. Wani and another - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 5 , 2011 . Heard Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioner. By this petition the petitioner impugns an order passed by the School Tribunal, Nagpur on 5/1/2011 holding that the appointment of the respondent no. 1 was made as per the provision of Sec. 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and directing that the appeal be proceeded further. The School Tribunal did not commit any error in holding that the appointment of the respondent no. 1 was made as per the provisions of Sec. 5 of the Act of 1977 as the management/petitioner was duly permitted to fill up the vacancy after issuance of an advertisement. The post of the clerk on which the respondent no. 1 was appointed was advertised along with other posts. The respondent no. 1 was interviewed and after his selection, he was appointed as a clerk by the order dated 24/06/2001 for a period of one year. 2 The advertisement did not show that the post was temporary or was from year to year basis. According to the Tribunal the contents of the advertisement reveal that the post was a permanent post and in such circumstances it was incumbent on the part of the management to appoint the respondent no. 1 as a clerk on probation for a period of 2 years. Since the post was a permanent one and since the respondent no. 1 was duly qualified for being appointed on the post and the appointment was also made after following the due procedure prescribed by law, according to the Tribunal as per the provisions of Sec. 5(2) of the Act of 1977 the management was left with no alternative but to appoint the respondent no. 1 on probation for a period of 2 years. In the peculiar facts of this case, the Tribunal rightly held that though the respondent No. 1 was appointed on three occasions, for 3 years, on year to year basis, the appointment of the respondent No. 1 should be deemed to be said to be an appointment on probation. The judgments reported in AIR 1997 SC 2126 (Hindustan Education Society Vs. Sk. Kalam Sk. Gulam Nabi) and 2007(6) Mh.L.J. 667 ( Priyadarshini Education Trust and others Vs. Ratis (Rafia) Bano d/o Abdul Rasheed and others) cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case as in this case the respondent No. 1 was appointed in a clear and permanent vacancy after following the due process of law and though it was necessary for the petitioner/management to appoint the respondent no.1 on probation for a period of 2 years, the petitioner appointed the respondent No.1 on year to year basis. In the judgment reported in 2007 (6) Mh.L.J. 667, it was found by this court that the employee had failed to prove that she was appointed by following the due process 3 of selection. That is not the case here. In the facts of this case, the Tribunal rightly held that the appointment of the respondent No. 1 can be deemed to be an appointment on probation. There is no jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Tribunal on 05/01/2011. In the result, the writ petition fails, hence, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan