1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1900 OF 2010 Vishnu Laxman Kasare -: VERSUS :- Mahatama Fuley Magaswargiya Mandal, Mindala 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 : AUGUST 26, 2010. Heard Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, learned Counsel for Petitioner, Mrs. U.A.Patil, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and learned A.G.P. for respondent no.4. Looking to the controversy involved, the matter is heard finally by consent of parties by issuing Rule, making it returnable forthwith. School Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 bearing Appeal No. STC 31/2005 by order dated 17.02.2010, after holding that the appointment of petitioner is not legal. Thus order passed is on preliminary issue as framed in obedience of directions of Division Bench of this Court in case of Anna 2 Manikrao Pethe .vrs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal and others reported at 1997 (3) Mh,.L.J. 697. Shri Mohgaonkar, learned counsel contends that the petitioner joined the employment on 01.10.1992 and after a departmental inquiry for alleged misconduct he was dismissed from service on 29.04.2005. He contends that in order to find out whether the appeal of petitioner has got substance, the school Tribunal cannot entertain the managements' plea of illegal appointment. He points out that there was proper application, interview, selection and appointment order. Though the appointment order was for a period of one year from 01.10.1992 to 30.06.1993, the Education Officer has rightly granted approval to petitioner on probation, and thereafter the petitioner is continued in service without any other appointment order till the date of his dismissal. His contention is, in such circumstances, the approach of School Tribunal is totally erroneous. The fact of absence of any other appointment order to petitioner or than grant of approval to his appointment on probation and his continuation for period of 13 years has not been considered by the School Tribunal. Mrs. Patil, learned Counsel as also learned A.G.P. appearing for respective respondents, urge that in response to the advertisement published in 1992, two teachers were appointed and both were granted approval by the Education Officer. Mrs. Patil, learned Counsel contends that because of this, it is apparent that 3 appointment of petitioner cannot be treated as legal and valid. In any case, as petitioner was never placed on probation, grant of approval to him as such by the Education Officer does not confer any right upon him. Her contention is, approach of School Tribunal in the matter is in accordance with law and this Court should not interfere in writ jurisdiction. Shri Mohgaonkar, learned Counsel states that the appointment of other teacher [alleged], is not in pursuance of some advertisement and in any case, the appointment order is issued to that teacher is of date 06.10.1992 i.e., after the petitioner. He further states that the teacher is still continued in the employment as permanent employee and this argument was not advanced before the School Tribunal, and hence the School Tribunal had no occasion to consider the same. After hearing I, am satisfied that the vital aspects apparent on record and relevant for adjudication of preliminary issue are ignored by the School Tribunal. The advertisement and purpose thereof, the approval granted by the Education Officer and whether it was in terms of advertisement or not, are the questions which required answer. Shri Mohgaonkar, learned counsel has attempted to show to this Court a certificate issued by the Headmaster that petitioner is confirmed employee. The School Tribunal ought to have looked into this document and after due opportunity to parties should have recorded a proper finding. If the post advertised 4 was permanent one why appointment for a period of one year, was required to be issued and why in absence of any further extension, the petitioner was permitted to continue for further period of 13 years, are the crucial aspects. The alleged appointment of other teacher on 06.10.1992 or its relevance may also be required to be gone into, if the facts so warrant. However, all this is required to be done by the School Tribunal after giving hearing to parties. Hence, I find that the School Tribunal has only looked into the limited tenure in the appointment order of petitioner and has reached to the said conclusion. The orders are therefore, unsustainable. Hence the order dated 17.02.2010 passed by the school Tribunal in Appeal No. STC 31/2005 is quashed and set aside and the said proceedings are restored back to the file of School Tribunal, Chandrapur to decide the above issue in accordance with law. The said decision shall be taken as early as possible and in any case by 31.01.2011. Parties to appear before the School Tribunal on 13.09.2010 and to abide by its further directions in the matter. Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.