:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 482 OF 2008 Pradeep Sahebrao Naiknavare ..Petitioner Vs. The Education Officer (Secondary) ZP Solapur and ors. ..Respondents Mr. I.M. Khairdi for petitioner. Mr. A.P. Vanarse, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 4. Mr. Santosh S. Jadhavar i/by Mr. G.N. Saluke for respondent no.2. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : January 31, 2008. Date : January 31, 2008. Date : January 31, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Khairdi the learned counsel for the petitioner who had approached the School Tribunal in Appeal No. 373 of 2004 and the said appeal has been dismissed as per the impugned Judgment and Order dated 4/10/2007. 2. The School Tribunal noted that the petitioner had claimed his employment with the respondent no.3-High School with effect from 28/6/1998 as an Assistant Teacher and when he demanded his salary he :2: was discontinued from 1/5/2001. The appellant claimed before the School Tribunal that he was being paid Rs.500/- per month and when he demanded the regular salary, the management was upset and he was not allowed to report for duty in the academic year 2001-02. He further submitted that again he started teaching some subjects under the oral instructions and he was not paid for the same assignment. He had relied upon the certificate issued by the Headmaster on 1/5/2001 which stated that he had worked as an Assistant Teacher from 28/6/1998 to 30/4/2001 and thus he had attained the status of deemed permanent teacher under Section 5(2) of the M.E.P.S. Act, 1977 (the Act for short). 3. The respondent-management had filed reply before the School Tribunal and pointed out that the appellant was never appointed as an Assistant Teacher, no appointment order was issued and in fact he was volunteered to teach some subjects to certain classes so as to get him experience. The Tribunal recorded a finding that there was no appointment order issued in favour of the appellant, he had not undergone any :3: selection process for appointment to the post of an Assistant Teacher with the respondent-school and at no point of time any advertisement was released by the management for appointment to the post of an Assistant Teacher. 4. Mr. Khairdi does not dispute the fact that no advertisement was issued by the management and no applications were invited. He also admits that the appellant - present petitioner did not undergo any selection process but insisted that he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher with effect from 28/6/1998 and having worked for more than 3 years continuously he had become a permanent teacher. 5. The petitioner had approached this court in Writ Petition No. 5158 of 2005 and the same was disposed on 21/11/2005 by the following directions to the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Solapur who was respondent no.1 in the said petition. (a) The respondent no.1 to hear the management :4: and record a finding if the petitioner was working between 9/8/1998 and after 2001. (b) If the respondent no.1 comes to the conclusion that the petitioner, in fact was working and for which he is entitled to salary, the respondent no.1 to issue directions to respondent nos.2 and 3 and if such directions are given, respondent nos.2 and 3 are directed to comply with the same within a period of four weeks. (c) Needless to say that respondent no.1 will hear the petitioner and respondent nos.2 and 3 before passing any order and not to be influenced to the stand that he had taken in the say filed before the School Tribunal. 6. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur had heard the petitioner as well as the management and passed an order on 11/8/2006 and his findings in the said order are as under:- :5: (a) The petitioner never issued an appointment order. (b) The management had started 5th to 7th standard classes unauthorisedly and from June 1998 to October, 1999 the petitioner was teaching for few hours. Similarly, in the academic year 1999-2000 and 2000-01 he had claimed to have taught to the students in 8th and 9th standards but there was no documentary proof to show that he was a full time teacher. (c) The record submitted by him indicated that he had taught the 8th and 9th classes in the academic year 1999-2000 and 2000-01 for six hours in a week which came to 1/4th of the full time teacher’s assignment. (d) Consequently, for the academic year 1999-2000 he was entitled for payment of Rs.26,298/- and for the next academic year he was entitled for the same amount. Thus the :6: total amount came to Rs.52596/-. 7. The reasoning set out by the School Tribunal in support of dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioner cannot be termed to be perverse or grossly erroneous so as to call for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. When the petitioner was never appointed and the Education Officer recorded a finding that the petitioner voluntarily approached the management for giving some teaching assignment for his experience, the School Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal. From the enquiry conducted by the Education Officer as per the directions of this court, obviously by visiting the school and enquiring with the teachers as well as with the students and, therefore, it is clear that the petitioner offered his services on part time basis and only to get experience and without expecting any remuneration. If it is his case that he was required to be paid by the management and the management, in turn, had agreed the same, he may approach the appropriate forum for recovery of the amount of Rs.52,596/-. :7: 8. The petition is rejected summarily. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)