: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2451 OF 2009 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.568 OF 2010 Rajendra Gajanan Kshirsagar .. Petitioner V/s. Phaltan Education Society & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar for the Petitioner. Mr. Milind Deshmukh for Respondent No.1. Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP, for Respondent No.3. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 9 TH JULY, 2010. P.C.: 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith, by consent. 2. The petitioner has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 11th December, 2008, passed by the School Tribunal, Kolhapur, in Appeal No.28 of 2007, by which the School Tribunal has dismissed the Appeal preferred by the petitioner. 3. It was the case of the petitioner that he had been appointed in service every year from 2000 onwards after following the regular procedure provided under the Maharashtra Employees of Private : 2 : Schools Act, 1977 and Rules 1981, (for short “the MEPS Act & Rules), for recruitment of teachers. The petitioner contends that he applied for the post pursuant to an advertisement being issued by the respondent Nos.1 & 2 in the English local newspapers and he was selected after being interviewed by the School Committee, as required under the law. It appears that the petitioner’s services came to an end on 30th April, 2007. The petitioner challenged the termination order by preferring an Appeal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act. This Appeal was dismissed by the School Tribunal mainly on the ground that there was inconsistency between the first advertisement and the appointment letter issued to the petitioner. 4. The petitioner has annexed to this Writ Petition, all the advertisements pursuant to which he applied and was selected over the years. He has also annexed the appointment letters issued to him over the years, from 2000 to 2007. Unfortunately these documents were not placed before the School Tribunal by either the petitioner or the School Management. : 3 : 5. The other reason for dismissing the Appeal is that the School Tribunal was of the view that there is a heavy backlog of backward class candidates from 1997 to 2006-07 and, therefore, there could have been no vacancy for a candidate from the open category to which the petitioner belongs. The copy of the roster has been annexed to the Writ Petition and the criticism of the learned Advocate for the petitioner on these findings of the School Tribunal appears to be justified. Prima facie the roster shows that the reservation is more than 52% whereas the law at the relevant time required that the reservation should not be more than 34%. 6. In these circumstances, in my view, it would be appropriate to remand the Appeal for a decision afresh. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of by passing the following order. “O R D E R” (i). The impugned Judgment and Order dated 11th December, 2008, passed by : 4 : the School Tribunal, Kolhapur, in Appeal No.28 of 2007, is set aside. (ii).Appeal No.28 of 2007 is remanded to the School Tribunal, Kolhapur, for a decision, afresh. (iii).The parties are at liberty to produce such evidence as is necessary in support of their respective cases including the advertisements and appointment letters, copies of which are annexed to this Writ Petition. (iv).All contentions of the parties are left open. (v). The School Tribunal will decide the Appeal as expeditiously as possible. : 5 : 7. Rule made absolute accordingly. No orders as to costs. 8. In view of the aforesaid directions, the Civil Application No.568 of 2010 pending in this Writ Petition is disposed of.