1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.3075 OF 1999 Rajendra Arjunrao Deokar. ...Petitioner. Vs. Acharya Atre Vikas Pratishtan & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr. A.M. Joshi for the Petitioner. Ms. A.R. S. Baxi for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. ..... CORAM :DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. April 3, 2008. P.C.: The Petitioner who held a B.A. & B.P. Ed. qualification was appointed as an Assistant Teacher for a temporary duration, by a communication dated 7th June 1996. The Petitioner was informed that in pursuance of the interviews held by the management, the Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher at New English School at Guroli. The management relied upon two letters of appointment; the first dated 7th June 1996 and the Second dated 7th June 1997 for it was the contention of the management that the appointment was on a temporary basis. The Petitioner has annexed 2 two certificates issued by the Headmaster respectively on 30th April 1998 recording that the Petitioner had worked as an Assistant Teacher during the Academic Year 1996-97 and 1997-98. The Petitioner moved the School Tribunal stating that he was not allowed to join service on 8th June 1998. The contention was that he was appointed to a permanent vacancy; that he completed two years' of service; that his work was satisfactory and that upon completion of two years, which must be treated as on probation, he must be deemed to be confirmed. The defence of the management is that the Petitioner was appointed by an order dated 7th June 1996 for a specific period upto 30th April 1997 and that the appointment was purely temporary. Again, it has been the case of the management that during the next Academic Year, the Petitioner was engaged from 11th June 1997 until 30th April 1998. In other words, the contention of the management was that the appointment of the Petitioner was for a temporary period and came to an end by efflux of time. 3 The School Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner by its order dated 20th September 1998 holding that: (i) The Petitioner was a B.A. in Hindi and held the B.P. Ed. Degree and that he was appointed only on a temporary basis until the management found a suitable teacher to teach English for which there was a requirement; (ii) The requirement of the management was for a teacher qualified to teach English and by its very nature, the appointment of the Petitioner was temporary until the qualified teacher was found; and (iii) There is material on record to indicate that the services of the Petitioner were not satisfactory. For the purposes of the present case, it would be necessary to emphasize that the Petitioner did not fulfill the required qualifications of holding a Bachelor's Degree in teaching, as prescribed by Schedule-B to the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules, 1981. In Hindustan Education Society vs. Kaleem Sk. Gulam Nabi, (1997) 5 SCC 152, the Supreme Court has held that where an appointment was purely temporary and for a limited period, the provisions for 4 deemed confirmation of a probationer under sub-section (2) of Section 5 would have no application. The same view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Bharatiya Gramin Punarrachana Sanstha vs. Vijay Kumar, 2003(1) Mh. L.J. 563. In the subsequent judgment also the Supreme Court held that the provision for deemed confirmation under Section 5(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 applies to a person who is put on probation consequent upon his appointment in a permanent vacancy. That provision, it has been held, would not apply to an Assistant Teacher who was appointed only for a specified period on a temporary basis. The facts of the present case would fall within the ratio of the judgments of the Supreme Court in both the aforesaid cases. The Tribunal has, in fact, followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Education Society. On behalf of the Petitioner an effort was, however, made to submit that the letters of appointment which were produced by the management before the Tribunal were not acknowledged by the Petitioner and in an affidavit filed before the Tribunal, the Petitioner had controverted authenticity of those documents to which there was no reply by the management. 5 Counsel appearing on behalf of the Management, however, is justified in urging that no such case was set up in the memo of appeal filed before the Tribunal in the first instance. In any event, there is no material to indicate that the Petitioner was placed on probation. Unless, the Petitioner was placed on probation, the consequences envisaged in sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act would not come into being. For the aforesaid reasons, the dismissal of the appeal filed by the Petitioner before the School Tribunal would have to be confirmed and is accordingly confirmed. The petition is accordingly, dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. .....