-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.1245 OF 2000 Secretary, Shri Shrisai Shikshan Prasasak Mandal & Anr. : Petitioners V/s. Shri Balasaheb Shrihari Gawade : Respondent ... Mr.Mandar Limaye i/b. Mr.R.S.Apte for the petitioners. Mrs.Anita Agarwal for the respondent. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 26, 2009. P.C. 1. The petitioners have challenged the order of the School Tribunal dated 7.10.1999 by which the respondent’s appeal is allowed and the order of termination of the respondent’s services is quashed and set aside. The petitioners have been directed to reinstate the respondent as an Asstt. Teacher with effect from 16.8.1995 with full back wages. 2. The respondent was appointed as an Asstt. Teacher by an appointment order dated 31.3.1992. The order stipulated that the appointment is on probation for a -: 2 :- period of two years. The respondent apparently continued in service till his services were terminated on 16.8.1995 by which a direction was issued to the respondent not to sign the register of attendance. The respondent preferred an appeal against his termination to the School Tribunal. Before the School Tribunal, the petitioners contended that the respondent had not been appointed by the petitioner- society at all and had not worked as a Teacher and, therefore, his claim for reinstatement is totally untenable and baseless. The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and the material on record and came to the conclusion that the respondent was duly appointed by an appointment order of the Headmaster who is also the Secretary of the School Committee. Since his services were on probation and he continued for a period beyond two years, his services must be deemed to have been confirmed under section 5(2) of the Act and, therefore, allowed the appeal. 3. Mr.Limaye, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the order of the School Tribunal is vitiated inasmuch as the Tribunal had not appreciated that there was no appointment order validly made by the management. In support of this contention, Mr.Limaye submitted that it is the function of the School Committee to make appointment of an employee vide Schedule ‘A’ rule -: 3 :- 3(c) and that the respondent had not produced any resolution of the School Committee by which he was appointed. This submission cannot be accepted. The appointment order, as observed by the School Tribunal, is signed by the Headmaster who is the Secretary of the School Committee and the respondent has produced that appointment order. There is no reason why the respondent ought to have been in possession of the resolution of the School Committee or any other body of the petitioner-society, deciding to appoint him. 4. It was next contended by Mr.Limaye that the respondent was appointed by the reason of personal relationship with one Atole and has not worked as a Teacher at all. It was contended that the respondent failed to produce any evidence that he worked. There is no merit in this contention either. The respondent has produced the appointment order and stated that he has been working as a Teacher for a period as long as three years. In fact, he also produced a letter written by the Education Officer to the petitioners in respect of the proposal for approval of the respondent’s services. This letter is obviously written by the Education Officer in response to a proposal for approval of the respondent’s services sent by the petitioners. There is no dispute that it is the management which always sends proposals for approval of -: 4 :- the services of a Teacher. Moreover, it was obviously the petitioner who was in possession of the entire record of the School and could have clearly demonstrated from those records that the respondent did not take any classes or signed the attendance register. There is thus no reason to accept the petitioners’ case. It is obvious that the respondent was not only appointed by the petitioners and the petitioners did not take any action for recall or cancel the appointment. Not only that, the petitioners apparently forwarded the proposal for approval of the respondent’s services to the Education Officer. In fact, it is interesting to note that the termination order basically directs the respondent to stop signing the attendance register which presumably he was signing till such termination. 5. In this view of the matter, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the School tribunal. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. S.A. BOBDE, J.