Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7572 of 2007 Mr.Chandrakant J.Shinde ...Petitioner V/s. Camp Education Society & ors. ...Respondents Mr.V.D.Raut for the Petitioner Mrs. Anita Agarwal for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Mr.S.K.Chinchalikar, AGP for Respondent No. 4 & 6 Ms. Sharmila G.Gaur i/by Mr.H.M.Ashar Mehta for Respondent No.5 CORAM CORAM CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. DATED DATED DATED : 8th January, 2008 : 8th January, 2008 : 8th January, 2008 P.C. Heard Mr. Raut, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner who is aggrieved by the Judgement and Order dated 24-7-2007 thereby dismissing criminal appeal no. 38/2004 by the School Tribunal, Pune Region, Pune. 2. The Petitioner claims that he possesses the qualifications of M.A.B.Ed and belongs to OBC. He was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in August 2001 till the end of academic year 2001-2002 and he was continued in the same fashion without any appointment order for the academic years 2002-03 and 2003-04. He was discontinued w.e.f. 31-3-2004 and,therefore, he 2 approached the School Tribunal by filing an Appeal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act, 1977 which Appeal came to be listed as Appeal No. 38/2004. The Petitioner claimed before the School Tribunal that he had worked continuously for 3 academic years and, therefore, he had reached the status of deemed permanency within the meaning of Section 5(2) of the MEPS Act, 1977 and such a termination was illegal. He also claimed that on 14-6-2004 when he went to report for duty, he was not allowed to join and, therefore, there was otherwise termination of his service. 3. The Respondent Management filed reply before the School Tribunal and pointed out that; (a) the appointment of the petitioner was on purely temporary basis (b) his appointment was only on hourly basis and (c) he was never appointed on probation so as to attend the status of deemed permanent teacher within the meaning of Section 5(2) of the MEPS Act. The management further pointed out that there was no termination of his service and by efflux of tenure in the appointment letter, it had come to an end on 31-3-2004. 3 4. Before the School Tribunal, the approval orders passed by the Deputy Director of Education on 5-12-2001, 27-3-2003,25-2-2004 were brought on record. In the first approval order for the academic year 2001-2002, the name of the Petitioner finds place at sr. no.15 and it clearly shows his date of appointment as 11-6-2001 and his appointment was on hourly basis i.e. 8 hours per week and with remuneration of Rs. 20/- per hour. The order further shows that he was not the only teacher appointed on hourly basis, there was one more teacher with the same qualification by name Mrs. V.J.Dhotre. In the next academic year again the Petitioner’s appointment approval is on hourly basis and he was given additional work load of psychology subject as well as physical education and the remuneration was Rs. 20/- per hour. In the 3rd academic year (2003-04) the petitioner’s appointment was approved by the Dy. Director of Education again on hourly basis and there was no additional charge of teaching. His appointment was approved for the work load of 8 hours per week with remuneration of Rs. 20/- per hour and only upto the end of academic year. By the letter dated 30-3-2002 the Petitioner was informed that his tenure of appointment in the academic year 2001-02 would come to an end on 30-4-2002. Similarly, in the next academic year he was issued a communication dated 31-3-2003 informing him 4 that his tenure of appointment would come to an end on 30-4-2003 and lastly the communication dated 31-3-2004 also informed him that his tenure of appointment in the academic year 2003-04 would come to an end on 30-4-2004. 5. The School Tribunal in the impugned Judgement noted that though the Petitioner was not issued appointment orders, his appointment as an Assistant Teacher by the Respondent No.1 under Respondent No.3 Junior College was admitted but on temporary basis and there was nothing to show that the Petitioner was appointed on probation for a period of 2 years against the permanent available post of Assistant Teacher. The Petitioner had alleged that he was appointed in clear and permanent vacancy and only to deprive him of the benefits of permanency, the appointments were being made on hourly basis. However, the record shows that the petitioner was not appointed as a full time teacher and on probation against the permanent vacancy. The Tribunal referred to Section 5(1) of the Act which states that every permanent vacancy in the Private School shall be filled by the management in the prescribed manner and having regards to the approval orders it was clear that the petitioner could not claim to have attained the status of deemed permanent teacher within the meaning of Section 5(2) of the MEPS Act. Consequently, the Appeal was dismissed. 5 6. The reasoning set out by the School Tribunal cannot be termed as perverse or patently erroneous so as to call for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution and hence the petition fails at the threshold and the same is hereby rejected summarily. [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.]