WP/6878/2010 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6878 OF 2010 The Secretary Sonapant Dandekar shikshan Mandal & anr. ... Petitioners V/s. Smt.Madhubala, Pune & Ors. ... Respondents Ms.Manjiri S. Parasnis for Petitioners Mr.D.G. Dhanure i/bJyoti Dhanure for Respondent No.1 Mr.P.I. Khemani, AGP, for State CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: NOVEMBER 19, 2010 P.C.: 1. The petitioners have approached this Court contending that the impugned order passed by the School Tribunal is incorrect. Respondent No.1 was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak and was working as such for over nine years. Her services were terminated by the petitioners and hence she approached the School Tribunal by preferring an appeal u/s 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The School Tribunal has found that the petitioners had committed an illegality by terminating her services when admittedly she was deemed to be permanent in view of the provisions of section 5(2A) of the MEPS Act. Under this provision, a Shikshan Sevak is deemed to have been appointed and confirmed as an assistant teacher on completion of probation of three years. I have perused the appointment orders issued to the respondent for the years WP/6878/2010 : 2 : 2005-2006 upto 2008-2009 all of which indicate that she was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak. Approval to her appointment as a Shikshan Sevak was granted, the last approval being granted by the Education Officer on 25.2.2009. 2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent was employed as a part-time Shikshan Sevak and, therefore, she could not be deemed to be permanent in service. According to the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, a part-time Shikshan Sevak cannot take recourse to the provisions of section 5(2A). 3. In my view, the submission of the learned advocate for the petitioners cannot be accepted. The School Tribunal has rightly held that since the respondent had completed service as a Shikshan Sevak continuously for a more than nine years she was entitled to permanency in accordance with section 5(2A). I see no reason to interfere with this order. The concept of a part-time Shikshan Sevak advanced on behalf of the petitioner appears to be incorrect. 4. The petition is rejected.