(1) LPA-145.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 145 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 471 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4372 OF 2011 IN LPA 145 OF 2011 Sillod Shikshan Sanstha Sillod and anr. APPELLANTS/ APPLICANTS VERSUS Smt. Sunanda Purushottam Deore and anr. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.V. Warad, Advocate h/f. Mr. P.G. Rodge, Advocate for the Appellant/Applicants. Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate for the Respondent. ..... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 18TH JULY, 2011 ORAL ORDER: 1. The Appeal has been preferred by an educational institution, challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition. The School Tribunal has found that the appointment of respondent no.1 as Shikshan Sevak had been terminated without conducting an enquiry. The School Tribunal therefore set aside the order while allowing the (2) LPA-145.2011 Appeal. The learned Single Judge has found that the appellants were unable to justify their order of termination of service and, therefore, has rejected the Petition at the threshold. 2. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants has argued that since the appointment of the respondent as a Shikshan Sevak was for a limited period of three years, she is not entitled to be treated as a confirmed employee. Furthermore, it is submitted that the approval having been granted for a limited period, the respondent no.1 could not claim continuous service. Apart from this, it is argued that the Writ Petition was rejected without waiting for a reply from the Education Officer. 3. All these contentions, in our opinion, are without merit. The Shikshan Sevak i.e. the respondent no.1 has worked for three years and in view of the provisions of the scheme for Shikshan Sevaks and the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 would be entitled to confirmation in service, unless it is found that the work of or behaviour of the employee was (3) LPA-145.2011 unsatisfactory. Apart from this, it is now well settled in view of the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of "St. Ulai High School and anr. Vs. Devendraprasad Jagannath Singh and anr. 2007(1) Mh.L.J. 597" that the withdrawal or cancellation or non-renewal of the approval cannot per-se lead to termination of the services of the employee. 4. Apart from this, the submission that it was necessary for the Court to wait for an affidavit from the Education Officer, is again untenable as it is for the petitioners themselves to make out their own case before the learned Single Judge and not on the basis of the affidavits, which may be filed by the respondents. Letters Patent Appeal dismissed. 5. Consequently, Civil Application no. 4372 of 2011 seeking stay also stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] arp/