1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.199/2008 Angulimal s/o Vijaykumar Kasture Vs. Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. R. L. Khapre, Adv. for respondent no.1. Mrs. A. Taiwade, A.G.P. for respondent no.2. Mr. A. Naik, Adv. for respondent no.4. CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE, J. ORDER RESERVED ON :13/8/2008. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 21/8/2008. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 13.11.2007 passed by School Tribunal, Amravati in Appeal No. 35/2006 allowing the appeal filed by respondent no.4 against order of termination dated 29.4.2006 issued by respondent no.1. Briefly, the facts leading to filing of the petition are as under:- The respondent no.1 appointed respondent no.4 as Assistant Teacher on probation in the school run by it with effect from 16.7.2000 pursuant to the advertisement dated 5.7.2000 issued by respondent no.1 inviting applications for the post of Assistant Teacher. According to respondent no.1, 2 the post was reserved for SC, ST and VJ candidate and the respondent no.4 belongs to N.T. which is not disputed by respondent no.4. Since respondent no.4 did not belong to the SC, ST or NT, the services of respondent no.4 were terminated by respondent no.1 by order dated 31.8.2005. Prior to her termination respondent no.4 filed Writ Petition No.33/2004 challenging the order passed by Education Officer refusing approval to her appointment as Assistant Teacher which was allowed by this Court by order dated 18.8.2005. Pursuant to the said order the Education Officer granted approval to the services of respondent no.4 as Shikshan Sevak for an initial period of three years and thereafter as Assistant Teacher. Respondent no.4 filed Appeal No. 37/2005 challenging his termination. In the said appeal interim relief was granted in favour of respondent no.1. Thereafter by order dated 29.4.2006 the respondent no.1 again terminated services of respondent no.4 w. e. f. 1.5.2006. Respondent no.4 challenged the same by filing Appeal No. 35/2006 before School Tribunal, Amravati. After hearing both sides the School Tribunal allowed both appeals by two separate orders dated 13.11.2007 which have been challenged by the management by filing Writ Petition No.5774/2007. After termination of services of the respondent 3 no.4 respondent no.1 appointed Angulimal Kasture the petitioner even by order dated 1.7.2006. By communication dated 17.11.2007 respondent No.1 has informed the petitioner that her services were being terminated in view of decision by the School Tribunal in appeals preferred by respondent no.4. Mr. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 13.11.2007 and communication dated 17.11.2007 are liable to be set aside on the following grounds:- (i) The impugned order was passed without hearing the petitioner and since the petitioner was appointed in the vacancy created by termination of services of respondent no.4; the petitioner ought to have been joined as party in the appeal filed by respondent no.4 and ought to have been heard in the matter. (ii) The appointment of the petitioner was regular and was made after following the Rules. Hence, his services could not have been terminated without giving him any hearing. Per contra, Mr. Naik appearing for respondent no.4 invited my attention to the order of appointment of the petitioner dated 1.7.2006 in which it has been clearly mentioned that the appointment of the petitioner was subject to result of Appeal No.37/2005 filed by respondent no.4 and 4 further that his services could be terminated without any notice. Therefore, Mr. Naik submitted that the petitioner was appointed in the temporary vacancy created by termination of respondent no.4 and as such he had no right to be heard in the appeal preferred by respondent no.4. Mr Mirza, learned A.G.P. supported the impugned order whereas Mr. Khapre adopted the submissions made by Mr. Sirpurkar. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I find no merit in the petition. Perusal of the order of appointment dated 1.7.2006 and communication dated 13.11.2007 disclose that the petitioner was appointed in the vacancy created on account of termination of respondent no.4 and the appointment was subject to result of Appeal No.37/2005 filed by respondent no.4. By separate order passed today in Writ Petition No.5774/2007 I have dismissed the petition filed by the management thereby upholding the orders passed by the School Tribunal in two appeals filed by respondent no.4. Since the appointment of the petitioner was subject to result of Appeal No.37/2005 filed by respondent no.4, the necessary sequitur is that the same was not regular but temporary. Therefore, the petitioner had no right to be heard or to be joined as party in the appeal preferred by 5 respondent no.4. I, therefore, do not find any merit in any of the submissions made in support of the petition. In view of the above, the petition is rejected with the costs of Rs. 1500/- (Rs. One thousand five hundred only) in favour of respondent no.4. JUDGE