1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8626 of 2010 Vidyarthi Vikas Mitra Mandal & Anr ..Petitioner Versus Smt. Choudhary Deepmala Ramesh & Others ...Respondents Mr.S.V.Pitre for the Petitioner Mr.A.M.Joshi for the Respondent No.1 Mr.D.R.More for the Respondent No.2 Mr.S.D.Rayrikar AGP for Respondent No.3 CORAM:- A.V.NIRGUDE J. DATED:- 9th DECEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. By consent of the Counsel for the parties, I am deciding this writ petition at admission stage. This writ petition, filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the judgment and order dated 20.8.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal, Pune in Appeal No. 24 of 2009. The respondent, appellants appeal was allowed. The facts leading to this litigation in short can be stated as under: 2 2. The respondent was appointed as Shikshan Sevak (Non Grant) in June 2003 in the school run by the petitioner society/ public trust. The Management did not send the proposal for approval of his appointment. In 2005, for the first time such proposal was sent, but the same was returned back on the ground that the respondent’s appointment as “Shikshan Sevak” could not be for only one academic year and it was suggested that such appointment ought to have been made for a period of three years. The petitioner then did not take any step in the matter but allowed the respondent to work as Shikshan Sevak. Since, begining the respondents appointment was made on the post which was not subject to grant. In other words, the petitioner society was under obligation to pay the salary to the respondent. This position continued further and in the meantime the petitioner, due to disputes amongst the members of the management lost control of the management and an Administrator was appointed. The Administrator, on 8.5.2010 sent a proposal for approval to the appointment of the respondent from 21.6.2003 to 30.4.2006 as “Shikshan Sevak” and thereafter as a regular teacher. The school board accepted the proposal and granted approval. In view of this, the respondent’s services as Shikshan Sevak from 21.06.2003 to 3 30.04.2006 as Shikshan Sevak got approved. From 1.5.2006 onwards she was approved as regular teacher. In this background, what happened thereafter is required to be appreciated. 3. On 21.5.2009 the petitioner society passed an order terminating the services of the respondent no.1 on the ground that she was a temporary teacher etc. This order was challenged in the appeal and the learned Member of the School Tribunal, examined as to whether the respondent no.1 was temporary teacher on 21.5.2009? He held that she was not and therefore he set aside the order of 21.5.2009 passed by the petitioner. This writ petition is filed as said above against the judgment and order of the learned Member of the School Tribunal. 4. In the light of the facts mentioned above, the learned Member of the School Tribunal rightly held that in view of the approval granted by the school board, to the appointment of the respondent no.1, she cannot be said to be a temporary teacher. Even otherwise, there is nothing on record to show that the respondent no.1 was a temporary teacher on 21.5.2009. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the very appointment of the respondent no.1 in 2005 etc was illegal and 4 therefore his client always assumed that the respondent no.1 was appointed on temporary basis. But this submission is erroneous for the reasons mentioned above. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner also contended that the order of termination was passed also because there was significant reduction in the strength of the students. He thereby suggested that on the date of the impugned order of termination the respondent no.1 could be a ‘surplus’ teacher. However, I am not inclined to deal with this because it is not the subject matter of the case. The petitioner management is well within its right to move a separate proposal for declaring respondent no.1 as surplus teacher etc. 7. It is clear from the discussion above that the belief of the petitioner that the respondent no.1 is temporary teacher is grossly erroneous. I find no error in the judgment impugned in the writ petition. It should therefore fail. Petition is dismissed. (A.V.NIRGUDE, J.)