1 W.P.No.4951.96 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4951 OF 1996 Prakash Narayan Autade ... Petitioner v/s The Secretary, Vidya Vikas Mandal & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Mihir Desai for the petitioner. Mr.P.G.Sawant, “B” Panel advocate for Resp.No.3. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 15TH OCTOBER, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The petition has been filed against the judgment and order of the School Tribunal dated 20.8.1996. The facts in brief in the present case are as follows:- The petitioner was appointed on 5.8.1992 pursuant to an advertisement issued by the management of the school and he was selected on the basis of an interview held. He was appointed against a vacant and permanent post. According to him, no adverse remarks have been made 2 W.P.No.4951.96 against him during his tenure in service. The management terminated his services by issuing a letter dated 20.3.1994. The termination was to take effect from 30.4.1994. The petitioner rushed to the Tribunal and obtained a stay of the termination order on 22.4.1994. 2. No reply was filed by the respondents according to the petitioner. He has stated so in the present petition. There is no reply filed by the management to the petition. However, the Tribunal in its order has proceeded on the footing that the management has filed a reply. In fact, the Tribunal has paraphrased the reply allegedly filed by the management. He proceeded to consider the reply and has passed an order dealing with a backlog of reserved category posts. The Tribunal has also observed that since the petitioner was appointed on a reserved vacancy, his appointment would be valid for a period of two years and would not be on a clear permanent vacancy. Therefore, he is not entitled to continue as a probationer. 3. In my opinion, the Tribunal has proceeded on completely erroneous footing. There is no material on record to indicate that the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 5.8.1992 was only against a temporary vacancy. There 3 W.P.No.4951.96 is also no material to indicate that the appointment order containing his name against the reserved post had been correctly issued. The appellant has stated in the appeal that he was appointed against roster point No.42 which is an open point. He has also stated that 34% of the quota for reserved category candidates was already filled and, therefore, the question of appointing him against a reserved vacancy did not arise. 4. The Tribunal by observing that the petitioner was appointed against a reserved post has committed a manifest error. There is no material to indicate that the roster was produced before the Tribunal and that the Tribunal has appreciated the fact that the roster point on which the petitioner was appointed was not a reserved post. 5. In such circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. 6. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs. ..... 4 W.P.No.4951.96