(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Letters Patent Appeal No. 178 of 2009 1. President, Samata Shikshan Samittee, Jalna, Dham Deep Sangh, Jalna, in State of Maharashtra, c/o. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Vidyalaya, Jalna, Taluka and District : Jalna. 2. Secretary, Samata Shikshan Samittee, Jalna, Dham Deep Sangh, Jalna, in State of Maharashtra, c/o. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Vidyalaya, Jalna, Taluka and District : Jalna. 3. Head Master, .. Appellants Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Vidyalaya, (Original Jalna, petitioners) Taluka and District : Jalna. versus 1. Madhav s/o. Yadavrao Dhotre, Age : Major, Occupation : Nil, R/o. Navabhai Building in front of Dr. Sajeed Modikhana, Jalna, District : Jalna. (2) 2. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalna, District : Jalna. .. Respondents. .......................... Mr. A.M. Dabir, Advocate, for the appellants. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. The appellants have taken exception to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this court, in Writ Petition No. 4865/2006, dated 17th July 2009, thereby dismissing the petition filed by the present appellants, challenging the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Aurangabad, dated 25th April 2006, in Appeal No. 45/2005, vide which the appeal filed by the respondent no.1 herein was allowed. 2. Mr. A.M. Dabir, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, submits that the appointment of respondent no.1 was purely for temporary period and, as such, it was not appointment protecting his services under Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. (3) 3. The learned Single Judge, while concurring with the findings of the School Tribunal, has found that the appointment of the respondent no.1 was against a clear and permanent post and merely because the wording used in the appointment order, as "temporary appointment", does not mean that the appointment was not an appointment which was referable to Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. 4. No infirmity could be found with the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge of this court, so as to warrant interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 5. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/lpa178