1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2992 OF 2011 (Ku. Vandana Vinayakrao Virkhede vs. Kalika Devi Shikshan Sanstha and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri V.A. Kothale, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri B. Mohta, Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. ------- CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATED : AUGUST 8 , 2011 The above petition takes exception to the order dated 9/3/2011 passed by the School Tribunal, Amravati whereby the Appeal filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed. The petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Junior College pursuant to the advertisement dated 12/6/1992 issued by the Management wherein six posts of Assistant Teachers were advertised, out of which one post was reserved for Scheduled Caste, one post for Scheduled Tribe 2 and one post for a Woman candidate. The Deputy Director of Education issued approval orders for specific academic sessions beginning from the academic session 1992-93 till 1994-95, albeit the last approval was granted as a probationer. As regards approval order dated 20/10/1993, it is pertinent to note that insofar as petitioner is concerned, approval was granted for the academic session 1993-94 in view of the backlog of reserved candidates. The services of the petitioner came to be terminated on 6/5/1995, which termination was to come into effect from 27/6/1995. Against the said termination order, the petitioner filed the Appeal before the School Tribunal. The School Tribunal in terms of the law laid down in Anna Manikrao Pethe vs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati and Aurangabad Division, Amravati and others (1997 (3) Mh.L.J. 697) framed two preliminary issues, inter alia being whether the School was recognised under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and whether the appointment of the petitioner was made 3 as per Section 5 of the said Act and Rules framed thereunder. The said issues were answered in favour of the petitioner. However, the School Tribunal answered issued no.3 against the petitioner, which was as regards the approval granted by the Deputy Director of Education. The School Tribunal held that since the petitioner was occupying a post meant for the reserved category, the Deputy Director of Education granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner from academic session to academic session. The School Tribunal further held that the petitioner could not be said to have been appointed against a permanent vacancy since it was an accepted position that the petitioner was appointed on a post meant for the reserved category and, therefore, merely because the petitioner's services were continued beyond the period of two years, it could not be held that the petitioner had completed the probationary period on completion of the said two years of service. The School Tribunal also held that the Management in terms of the law laid down by this Court had a right to make temporary 4 appointment against the clear vacancy meant for the reserved category candidate where a reserved category candidate is not available and such temporary arrangement can continue only till a suitable candidate is available from the reserved category. The School Tribunal observed that appointment in respect of a post meant for reserved category candidate has to be in terms of Rule 9(a) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 and the case of the petitioner could not be said to be fulfilling the conditions laid down in Section 5 of the said Act. It is required to be noted that presently a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste is holding the post, which was occupied by the petitioner. It is sought to be contended by Shri Kothale, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the services of the petitioner were also not terminated in the manner required in terms of the said Rules, namely, excluding the period of vacation. In the said context, it is required to be seen that the petitioner's appointment was to come to an end by efflux of time, i.e. on coming to an end of that 5 particular academic session and, therefore, it is questionable whether requirement of one month's notice was warranted in the petitioner's case. Having perused the reasons mentioned by the School Tribunal in rejecting the said Appeal, I do not find any illegality or infirmity or error of jurisdiction committed by the School Tribunal for this Court to interdict in its writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE khj