1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5342 OF 2009 The Secretary, Girijan Vikas Mandal, Shivni (Tanda) Through Ramrao s/o. Talshiram Naik, Age 40 yrs., Occu. Advocate and Secretary of Girijan Vikas Mandal, Shivni R/o. Degloor, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. 2. The Head Master, Vidya Vikas Vidyalaya, Martoli, At - Martoli, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded. 3. Kishan s/o. Dattatraya Suknale, Age 28 yrs., Occu. Nil, R/o. Martoli, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded. ....Respondents. Shri. S.R. Yadav (Lonikar), Advocate for petitioner. Shri. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondent No. 1. Shri. A.V. Patil Advocate h/f. Shri. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5338 OF 2009 2 The Secretary, Girijan Vikas Mandal, Shivni (Tanda) Through Ramrao s/o. Talshiram Naik, Age 40 yrs., Occu. Advocate and Secretary of Girijan Vikas Mandal, Shivni R/o. Degloor, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. 2. The Head Master, Vidya Vikas Vidyalaya, Martoli, At - Martoli, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded. 3. nAGREDDY S/o. Hanmareddy Pange, Age 38 yrs., Occu. Nil, R/o. Manoor, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded. ....Respondents. Shri. S.R. Yadav (Lonikar), Advocate for petitioner. Shri. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondent No. 1. Shri. A.V. Patil Advocate h/f. Shri. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5341 OF 2009 The Secretary, Girijan Vikas Mandal, Shivni (Tanda) Through Ramrao s/o. Talshiram Naik, Age 40 yrs., Occu. Advocate and Secretary of Girijan Vikas Mandal, Shivni R/o. Degloor, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded. ....Petitioner. 3 Versus 1. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. 2. The Head Master, Vidya Vikas Vidyalaya, Martoli, At - Martoli, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded. 3. Mohd. s/o. Shadul Sab, Age 33 yrs., Occu. Nil, R/o. Manoor, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded. ....Respondents. Shri. S.R. Yadav (Lonikar), Advocate for petitioner. Shri. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondent No. 1. Shri. A.V. Patil Advocate h/f. Shri. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 14th June 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and 3 waive service of notice. Notice to respondent No. 2 is dispensed with as he has not challenged order of setting aside termination and it is the management which is concerned with ultimate order of Tribunal impugned in this petition. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matters are taken up for disposal finally at the 4 stage of admission. 2. All these writ petitions are preferred by the petitioner - Management, challenging the separate judgments and orders dated 12.9.2008 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Latur directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent/employees in service with continuity in service and 50% of backwages. In Writ Petition No. 5342/09 the respondent No. 3 was appointed as Peon whereas in other two writ petitions, the respondent No. 3 were appointed as Assistant Teacher. In all these petitions the School Tribunal has recorded a clear finding that the employees have acquired the status of permanent employees, in the school run by the petitioner - Management. The respondent/employees in all the petitions were appointed after following the prescribed procedure in the year 1996 and they were in service continuously without interruption till 2002, when the school was closed down. Upon their termination from service, on account of closure of school, they preferred separate appeal before the School Tribunal. Those appeals are allowed by the School Tribunal. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the School was reopened after June 2006 and it was functioning. On the basis of such finding of fact, reinstatement of all the employees along with backwages was ordered. It is this order of reinstatement and backwages which is questioned in all these writ petitions by the petitioner. 5 3. The respondent - Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded has filed an affidavit in response to notice of all these writ petitions, stating clearly that the School is not functioning since 2002. The learned counsel for both the parties also agree that the school has not been reopened thereafter at any time. It remains closed and there is no chance of reopening of the said school. In view of this admitted position, the order passed by the Tribunal, granting reinstatement and backwages cannot be sustained. The same is, therefore, quashed and set aside. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 in all these petitions submit that common writ petition is pending before the Division Bench of this Court, claiming absorption as contemplated under Rule 25-A and 26 of M.E.P.S. Rules. There is no challenge to the finding recorded by the Tribunal in all these three petitions that the respondent No. 3 in all these petitions have acquired the status of permanent employees and that their termination was illegal. It seems that a point was raised before the Tribunal that the appointment of respondent No. 3 in all these petitions have not been approved by the Education Officer and hence, the question of respondent/employees, acquiring status of permanent employees does not arise. However, this point has been answered by the School Tribunal holding that for want of approval the orders of appointment will not invalidate. The undisputed position being that the respondent No. 3 in 6 all these petitions are appointed in the year 1996 on clear and permanent vacancies and were continuous in service till 2002, when the school was closed down and their termination was illegal. In view of this, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the respondent No. 3 in all these petitions have acquired status of permanent employees, need no interference. 5. In the result, the instant writ petitions succeed partly. The order of the School Tribunal to the extent it granted reinstatement and backwages to the respondent/employees in service is hereby quashed and set aside. The rest of the order passed by the Tribunal is maintained. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/wp5342.09