IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 307 OF 2000 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 307 OF 2000 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 307 OF 2000 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2200 OF 2000 WRIT PETITION NO. 2200 OF 2000 WRIT PETITION NO. 2200 OF 2000 The Chairman, Prakash Awade Education Society- Kolhapur & Anr. ...Appellants V/s. Shri Shashikant Mahadeo Kamble & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.R.S. Ghadge i/b. Mr.A.S. Desai for the Appellants. Mr.S.S. Pakale for Respondent No.1. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & V.M. KANADE, JJ. V.M. KANADE, JJ. V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 17, 2008 DATED : JANUARY 17, 2008 DATED : JANUARY 17, 2008 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. The appellant is challenging the order dated 13th September, 2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2200/2000 who was pleased to reject the writ petition and confirmed the order passed by the School Tribunal. . Brief facts in nutshell are as under :- - 2 - 3. The respondent was appointed as Assistant Teacher from 1.8.94 to 30.5.95 on purely temporary basis. On 30th March, 1995, his services were terminated by giving notice dated 30th March, 1995. He was again appointed on temporary basis for the academic year beginning from 12th June, 1995 to 30th April, 1996. Again his services were terminated on 30th April, 1996. The management invited applications for appointment of Teachers and notice to that effect was issued and advertisement was made. Pursuant to that, the respondent no.1 applied for the post of Assistant Teacher, however, he was not selected. 4. Being aggrieved by the fact that he was not appointed, the respondent no.1 filed appeal before the School Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, it was contended that the respondent was appointed on probation and he was entitled to be continued in service. The School Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the respondent no.1 and it was held that the respondent no.1 was appointed on probation and therefore, his services could not have been terminated. This order is confirmed by the learned - 3 - Single Judge in appeal. 5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant invited our attention to a judgment of Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Education Society Hindustan Education Society Hindustan Education Society V/s.Sk.Kallem Sk Galam & Ors, reported in AIR 1997 SC V/s.Sk.Kallem Sk Galam & Ors, reported in AIR 1997 SC V/s.Sk.Kallem Sk Galam & Ors, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2126. 2126. 2126. He submitted that since the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis, he had no right to the post and his services could be terminated at the end of the period at which his tenure was over. He further submitted that event assuming that the respondent was appointed on probation, since his services were terminated within a period of one year, the management was entitled to do so. 6. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that no memo had been issued to the respondent and therefore, nothing was on record show that his services was not satisfied. 7. In our opinion, the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant is valid in view of - 4 - the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Education Society (supra). Hindustan Education Society (supra). Hindustan Education Society (supra). The respondent who was, admittedly, appointed on temporary basis did not have any right to the post. Even if it is held that he was on probation, the management was entitled to terminate his services within the period of two years. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent did not rely on any other judgment of the Apex Court taking contrary view to the view taken in the case of Hindustan Education Society (supra). Hindustan Education Society (supra). Hindustan Education Society (supra). Both the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge also have not considered the ratio of the judgment in the said case. The order of the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge, therefore, is liable to be set aside. 8. The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge and the Tribunal is set aside. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)