1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR LPA NO.497/2009 IN WP NO.419/2009 (D) [Sunil Wasudeorao Bhoyar .vrs. Jamdar High School Education Society, Nagpur and another] ..................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. G.D. Vaidya, Advocate for appellant. .......... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE AND P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : APRIL 20, 2010. Heard. The appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge reversing the judgment of the School Tribunal reinstating the appellant as a teacher. The appellant was appointed as teacher by the respondent-management. His services were terminated by the respondent-management. In the appeal preferred against the termination of the appellant, the School Tribunal set aside the termination and reinstated the appellant in service. Against the order of the School Tribunal, respondent- 2 management preferred the Writ Petition to the learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge has set aside the order of the School Tribunal and held that the appellant is not entitled for reinstatement since he is never appointed on clear vacancy and, therefore, Section 5 of the M.E.P.S. Act has no application. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the appellant was appointed in a permanent vacancy. This is, however, not apparent from the appointment order in which the nature of the appointment is left vague, as none of the option about the same are scored out. The relevant clause of the appointment order is as follows : “(2) * Your appointment is purely temporary for a period of three years from 06/08/2004 to the end of the sessions 2007 in the leave/deputation vacancy. After expiry of the above period, your services shall stand terminated without any notice. OR * Your appointment is on Probation for a period of two years” In these circumstances, the learned Single Judge has rightly taken into account, for considering the nature of the appellant’s appointment, the fact 3 that the documents shows that the appointment of appellant was purely on clock hour basis and he paid fixed salary, initially at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month and then Rs.1,500/- per month and further that the appellant was not paid fixed salary in the regular scale of pay until termination. Thus learned Single Judge has correctly drawn the conclusion that the appointment of appellant was not permanent though not made temporary nor probation, same was only on clock hour basis on the payment of honorarium for the specified number of period. It is clear that the appellant could not said to have been appointed on permanent basis. There is clear finding that the appellant was not paid any amount during the period of vacation and in our view, the learned Single Judge has rightly concluded that the appellant was not appointed on probation in a clear vacancy. In this view of the matter, we find that the order of the learned Single Judge is based on clear and cogent evidence and does not suffer from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande