1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 607 OF 2010 (Jayandra N. Tarjule -: versus :- Tikeshwar Abhiman Meshram and others) AND Writ Petition No. 1057 OF 2010 (Dnyan Sanwardhan Shikshan Sanstha -: versus :- Dy.Director of Education, Nagpur and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 5, 2010. Heard Mr.S.S.Tambulkar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.607/2010 and for respondent no.3 in W.P. No.1057/10, Mr. Shashikant Borkar, learned counsel for petitioner in W.P. No. 1057/2010 and for respondent no. 2 in W.P. No. 607/2010, Mr. N.M.Jibhkate, learned counsel for respondent no.1 in W.P. No. 607 of 2010 and Mr. J.B. Jaiswal, learned A.G.P. for Deputy Director of Education in both the petitions. Writ Petition No. 607/2010 is by respondent no. 3 in Appeal No. STN 348/1994, decided on 31/10/2009 by School Tribunal, Nagpur. Before this Court, learned Advocate Mr. Borkar for the management has made a statement that respondent no.3 was not appointed against the vacancy caused by removal of appellant before School Tribunal. It is not necessary for this Court to examine correctness of the statement as in view of the statement made, the management cannot take any step to the prejudice 2 of respondent no.3 i.e. Petitioner in W.P. No. 607/2010. As the petitioner in W.P. No. 607/2010 is not prejudiced in any way because of the impugned adjudication, the said writ petition is disposed of accordingly. In Writ Petition No. 1057/2010, the management has challenged the judgment of School Tribunal dated 31/10/2009 only. It is the contention of learned Advocate Mr. Borkar that the petitioner had suppressed his earlier service and its termination as also challenge pending before School Tribunal in appeal, about it. He has invited attention to Rule 18(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1981’), to urge that because of pendency of those proceedings the appellant before School Tribunal i.e. respondent no.2 in present W.P., could not have been appointed on probation at all. In the alternative, his contention is, in any case, as the post was reserved for the Nomadic Tribe candidate, the petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste, could not have been recruited on probation and as per the provisions of Rule 9(9)(a) of the Rules of 1981, the said respondent no.2 could have been continued only on year to year basis. The appointment order issued to respondent no.2 is on probation and his termination is only because of refusal of approval by Deputy Director of Education. There is no other reason given for termination. The alleged suppression of other employment and hence, impropriety of securing appointment on probation, was also not the contention raised before the School Tribunal. The facts as 3 considered by the School Tribunal show that after termination of respondent no.2, respondent no.3 before it came to be appointed to shoulder the workload of respondent no.2. The Deputy Director granted approval to the appointment of respondent no.3, though he did not belong to Nomadic Tribe and he belong to Scheduled Caste. Provisions of Rule 9(9)(a) of the Rules of 1981 contemplate year to year appointment only when candidate from remaining backward classes is not available. When employment was given to respondent no.2, the candidate in the shape of respondent no.2 belonging to backward class was available. Hence, School Tribunal has correctly considered the controversy. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition No. 1057/2010 is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. At this stage, learned Advocate Mr. Borkar has pointed out that the fact of termination by earlier management in 1993 and pendency of Appeal before School Tribunal was pleaded in the written statement by the petitioners before School Tribunal and the School Tribunal has not considered that aspect. As said reason was not put forth as a reason for termination and calls for verification in proper manner, this Court cannot accept it. However, the petitioner management is at liberty to take appropriate steps in the matter, if it so desires. JUDGE Diwale