( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3203 OF 2010 Indira Bahu-Udeshiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & another PETITIONERS VERSUS Sunita Motiram Nade & another RESPONDENTS .... Mr. Sachin Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.D. Salunke, advocate, holding for Mr. S.A. Wakure, advocate for the respondent No. 1. Mr. N.H. Borade, AGP for the respondent No. 2. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 25th June, 2010] PER COURT : 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges judgement and order rendered by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Solapur in appeal No. 5/2009. By that judgement, the appeal preferred by the respondent No. 1 was allowed. The petitioner was thereby directed to reinstate the respondent No. 1 as an Assistant Teacher in the school run by the petitioner. ( 2 ) 2. The respondent No. 1 admittedly is B.A. B.Ed. And was working as Assistant Teacher in the school run by the petitioner. She was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in the primary school section as per appointment order dated 11-06-2001. She was thereafter appointed on probation. There is no dispute about the fact that after completion of two (2) years' probation period, the respondent No. 1 was appointed on a permanent and vacant post. She worked with the petitioner uptill November, 2008. The respondent No. 1 was appointed after following due procedure and on consideration of her application received in response to an advertisement for the post. It appears that one Gautam mate was terminated from service by the petitioner. Said Gautam Mate had preferred an appeal. The appeal of Gautam Mate was allowed by the School Tribunal. He was reinstated as an Assistant Teacher. The respondent No. 1 was thereafter shown exit by termination of her services. She alleged that she was illegally terminated. The School Tribunal found that there was no proper and legal termination of the respondent No.1. Consequently, the appeal was allowed. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the impugned judgement, it is amply clear that ( 3 ) the respondent No. 1 had completed initial period of two (2) years' probation without any fault on her part. She was eligible for the grant of status as a permanent employee under section 5 (2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. She was granted the benefit of permanency and was placed in the pay scale. The only reason for termination appears to be that another school teacher by name Shri Gautam Mate was required to be reinstated. The contention of the petitioner is that after reinstatement of Gautam Mate, the posts were filled and, therefore, there was no vacancy left for continuation of the respondent No.1. It was the contention of the petitioner before the Tribunal and the same is the contention put forth in this petition that that the respondent No. 1 was appointed in the vacancy caused due to the termination of Gautam Mate and, therefore, after his reinstatement, she had no right to continue on the post. The record does not show that her appointment was conditional and that, she was, in fact, appointed in place of Gautam Mate. There is nothing on record to show that she was put on notice that her appointment was liable to be cancelled if said Gautam Mate will be required to be reinstated as a result of appeal preferred by him. The appointment letter issued to her did not indicate such ( 4 ) contingent appointment. The petitioner could not have, therefore, terminated the respondent No.1 only because Gautam Mate was to be reinstated. In this view of the matter, there is no substance in the petition. Petition is dismissed. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp3203-10