:1: 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 WRIT PETITION NO. 559 OF 2000 WRIT PETITION NO. 559 OF 2000 WRIT PETITION NO. 559 OF 2000 1. Kikvi Vibhag Shikshan Sanstha] At & Post : Kikvi, Tal : Bhor ] Dist:Pune (Through its Chairman)] 2. The Head Master, ] Shri Chatrapati Shivaji ] Vidyalaya, At & Post : Kikvi ] Tal: Bhor, Dist : Pune ]..Petitioners versus 1. Shri Ashok Uttam Gholve ] Residing at Post : Minbodi ] Tal: Indapur, Dist : Pune ] 2. State of Maharashtra ]..Respondents Mr. S. J. Ghogare for the Petitioners. Mrs. A. A. Agarwal for the Respondent No. 1. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 15TH JANUARY, 2009. DATE : 15TH JANUARY, 2009. DATE : 15TH JANUARY, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : ORAL JUDGMENT : ORAL JUDGMENT : . Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and the Respondent No. 1. 2. This is a petition by the management challenging the judgment and order of the School Tribunal, Pune, 29.11.1999 directing the petitioners to reinstate the respondent No.1 as an Assistant :2: Teacher with effect from 1.5.1994 with full backwages till 21.12.1998. The respondent No.1 was appointed in a clear vacancy although on a purely temporary basis for a period of four months from 13.12.1993 to 30.4.1994 for the academic year 1993-94. The appointment order is specific in this regard. On 29.3.1994, the petitioners issued a notice of termination to the respondent No.1 terminating his services with effect from 30.4.1994. The respondent No.1 challenged the termination before the School Tribunal which has set aside the termination and reinstated him with backwages. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order suffers from a patent error of law apparent on its face. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal committed a grave error in coming to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1 was appointed on a permanent basis when the appointment order itself specifies that the appointment is on a temporary basis for a fixed period of four months. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the respondent No. 1’s appointment which was in a clear vacancy must be presumed to :3: have been made on a permanent basis by virtue of operation of Section 5 of the M.E.P.S. Act. This contention cannot be upheld in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Hindustan Hindustan Education Society and Anr. vs. S. K. Kaleem S. Education Society and Anr. vs. S. K. Kaleem S. Education Society and Anr. vs. S. K. Kaleem S. K. Gulamnabi & Ors. [1997 (76) FLR 262] K. Gulamnabi & Ors. [1997 (76) FLR 262] K. Gulamnabi & Ors. [1997 (76) FLR 262] where the Supreme Court held such an appointment as a temporary appointment and did not confirm rights of permanency. 5. Thus the impugned order of the Tribunal allowing the respondent No.1’s appeal is hereby set aside. The Appeal filed by the respondent No.1 is dismissed. Rule is made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)