1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 4192 OF 2008 ( Girdhar Anandrao Thaori V/s. Dr. Ambedkar Shikshak Sanstha Hinganghat & others. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. M.B. Nasare, Advocate for petitioner. R.M. Ahirrao, advocate for respondent no.1 to 3. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : JULY 30, 2009. 1. This petition is filed by a teacher whose services were terminated. The learned Presiding Officer School Tribunal Chandrapur refused to entertain the petitioner’s appeal on the ground that appointment was not in accordance with section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regularization Act, 1977 and Rules framed thereunder. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed by an order signed by the President of the parent society and not by Headmaster/Secretary of the School Committee. On 3rd April 2009 when the petition came up for admission it was observed as to whether appointment of teacher would be illegal merely because 2 appointment order has been signed by the President instead of Headmaster even though all the procedure is duly followed. The record does show that the petitioner was appointed after undergoing a regular selection process. The only defect is that the order of appointment is signed by the President of the parent society and not by Headmaster/Secretary of the School Tribunal as required by Schedule D. But this does not change the fortunes of petitioner since the learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal came to such a conclusion based on the judgment of this court in Ashok Asramji Gabhane V/s. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur and others reported in 2002 (4) Mh.L.J. 225 wherein it has been observed in para 8 that it was not in dispute in said case that the appointment orders were not issued by the Headmaster/Secretary of the School Committee, and therefore, on this short ground, they could not be termed as appointment order in law as contemplated by Schedule D of the Rules and, therefore, no legal right can be canvassed on the basis of such orders, which are no orders in the eyes of law. In the face of this judgment the learned Presiding Officer School Tribunal could not have taken any other view. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed his reliance on the judgment of Full Bench of this 3 Court reported in 1981 Mh.L.J. 332 (Premlata Sudhakar Sathe V/s. Governing Body of G.S. Tompe College and others) which pertains to appointments under the College Code and it was held that irrespective of whether a contract was signed or not the appointment would be in terms of the College Code. Now since this judgment is given in the context of an altogether different enactment it would not be permissible to hold it as conflicting with the judgment Ashok Asramji Gabhane’s case which is directly on this point. 4. The reason which may have prevailed on the authorities, while insisting upon the appointment by Headmaster or Secretary of the School Committee, rather than office bearers of parent society, could be found in the judgment of Ashok Gabhane’s case itself. In that case first appointment of the unfortunate teacher was proper but the subsequent two appointment orders were issued by one Mr. Indurkar who was not the President of the society. Possibly, in order to avoid this kind of mishap, the Legislature decided that order of appointment of teacher must be signed by Headmaster or Secretary as the School Committee itself as distinct form the parent body. Since disputes in members of parent bodies are the order of the day, it may be 4 difficult to ascertain at any point of time as to who are the office bearers legally in Charge. Such cannot be the case of a Headmaster, who would be an ascertainable person. Hence the learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal cannot be said to have erred in concluding that he could not entertain the appeal. The petition is dismissed. JUDGE nvt.