1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.1963 of 1992. PETITIONER: Bharat Education Society, through its Secretary, Shri B.L. Deshmukh, resident of Arvi, Tahsil Arvi, District Wardha. -versus- RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department of Education, Mantralaya, Bombay-32. 2. Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Training, Regional Office, Nagpur. 3. Sanjay Marotrao Satkure, resident of Karanja (Ghadge), Tahsil Karanja, District Wardha. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court s or Judge s appearances, Court's orders or direction Orders and Registrar's orders. S/Shri K. V. & S. V. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri T. A. Mirza, AGP for State Respondent Coram : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. Dated : 7th SEPTEMBER, 2009. 1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 2-9-1992 passed by the Respondent no.2  Dy. Director Vocational Education whereby the 2 Petitioner management has been asked to continue the Respondent No.3 Asstt. Teacher in service even for 1991-1992 academic year. This Court has, while issuing the notice in the matter on 9-9-1992, granted the stay to its effect, and that stay has been confirmed on 30-9-1992 while issuing the rule in the matter. The Respondent no.3 though served with a notice chose not to appear, and again he was served on merits, but he has chosen not to appear. It appears that this writ petition was disposed off on 7-7-2008 by speaking order and at that time also Respondent No.3 had chosen not to appear. The management then filed the Misc. Civil Application for review bearing No.932 of 2008 and Advocate Shri Deshmukh states that even after receipt of the its notice, Respondent No.3 chose not to appear in review also. The review was allowed on 16-09-2008 and the judgment dated 7-7-2008 was recalled. The Writ Petition was then 3 restored back to file. After restoration again, notice was sent to Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.3 was served, still he has chosen not to appear. 2. In this background, Advocate Shri Deshmukh states that the management had issued the advertisement, and thereafter, appointed the said Respondent only for one academic year i.e. 1991-1992 in purely temporary capacity. The Orders specify that at the end of academic session, the appointment would come to an end. He contends that as such, there was no termination and at the end of the academic session 1991-1992, Respondent No.3 stood terminated. The Respondent No.3 then approached the Respondent No.2 - Dy. Director of Education and his representation was then considered by the Respondent No.2 which ultimately resulted in passing of the impugned order dated 2-9-1992. 3. Shri Deshmukh Advocate states that in 4 view of the provisions of Section 9 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, the Dy. Director of Education could not have interfered with the matter and the School Tribunal alone was the competent forum to deal with the termination aspect. He states that the order dated 2-9-1992 is, therefore, without jurisdiction. He further points out that Respondent No.3 thereafter corrected his mistake and he filed the S. T. Appeal No.259 of 1990 before the School Tribunal at Nagpur, and challenged the alleged termination and sought continuation for the academic session 1992-1993 onwards. That appeal has been dismissed in default by the School Tribunal on 16-8-2004. Accordingly, therefore, the Respondent no.3 has no interest in the matter and the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Learned AGP Mr. Y.B. Mendpe points out that the Respondent No.2 Dy. Director has 5 not dealt with the order of termination at all as there was no termination order issued and by applying the Government Policy decision, the said authority found that it was obligatory to the management to continue the Respondent No.3 even in 1992-1993. He states that the Dy. Director has, in pursuance of the said policy, warned the management that if they appoint some fresh candidate, said appointment would not be approved by the Respondent No.2. He, therefore, contends that the challenge in the present petition is totally misconceived. He further points out that the challenge before the School Tribunal and dismissal of appeal in this background is totally irrelevant for adjudication of the present writ petition. 5. After hearing the respective Counsel, we find that the Respondent no.3 made a representation on 29-8-1992 complaining that a fresh advertisement was issued in violation of 6 the Government Circular dated 21-6-1991 and, he claimed continuation and fresh appointment order even for the year 1992-1993 by pointing out that he was duly qualified. He also requested the Respondent No.2 to direct the management to permit him to join the duties. His representation clearly shows that he was waiting for fresh appointment order after the academic session 1992-1993 started and then he came across the fresh advertisement issued by the management. After getting the knowledge of said advertisement, he contacted the Principal of the Institution, but the said Principal refused to issue him any appointment order. The representation, therefore, clearly shows that the Petitioner was not permitting Respondent no.3 to join the duties and the Respondent No.3 was, therefore, seeking direction to the management that he should be given appointment order. Thus, the fact that he was not in employment on the said date is 7 accepted by him in his representation. It is thus, clear that he was attempting to ventilate his grievance about the termination. 6. The filing of the appeal before the School Tribunal needs to be viewed in this background. After mentioning this fact therein, he has expressly sought the relief of reinstatement and the appeal is under Section 9 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act. It is, thus, apparent that Respondent No.2  Dy. Director cold not have, therefore, looked into the matter as a matter not in relation to termination, but only in relation to the claim for continuation in the employment. The appeal filed by the Respondent No.3 before the competent authority i.e. School Tribunal has been dismissed on 16-8-2004. 7. The Respondent No.3 has chosen not to appear in this matter at various stages only because of his act of filing the appeal before 8 the School Tribunal. The memo of appeal produced before us with the said appeal was filed by him on 7-9-1992. 8. In this background, in view of Section 9 of M.E.P.S. Act, the Respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to direct the management to provide work to Respondent No.3. The said direction as contained in the communication dated 2-9-1992 is, therefore, quashed and set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. However, in the circumstances, there shall be no costs. JUDGE JUDGE /Muley/