:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5977 OF 2003 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1897 OF 2004 1. The General Secretary Maharashtra Mandal, Pune and anr. ..Petitioners Vs. 1. Supradnya Sanjay Joshi and ors. ..Respondents Mr. P.S. Dani for petitioners. Mr. A.M. Joshi for respondent no.1. Mr. S.K. Chinchalikar, AGP for respondent nos.2 and 3. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : January 31, 2008. Date : January 31, 2008. Date : January 31, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Dani the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Joshi the learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Mr. Chinchalikar, the learned AGP appears for respondent nos.2 and 3. Mr. Joshi states :2: that respondent nos.2 and 3 are not the necessary parties and it is rightly pointed out by Mr. Dani that the said respondents were very much impleaded as respondent nos.3 and 4 in Appeal No.132(A) of 2002 filed by the respondent no.1 before the School Tribunal. 2. The preliminary issues raised by Mr. Dani have been considered and dealt with in the order dated 20/12/2007 passed in this writ petition. It is also clear that as directed by the said order, the petitioners have not deposited the salary amount from September, 2003 to December, 2007 in spite of the period for such deposit have been extended. 3. Coming to the challenge to the impugned judgment and order on merits, it needs to be noted that the respondent no.1 was appointed for the first time as an Assistant Teacher with effect from 1/7/1996. She was continued for subsequent seven academic years and the following statement will show as to how she was appointed and her services came to be terminated in every academic year:- :3: Sr. Academic Year Date of Date of Appointment Termination ------------------------------------------------------ 1. 1996-97 1/7/1996 30/4/1997 2. 1997-98 16/6/1997 31/3/1998 3. 1998-99 16/5/1998 31/3/1999 4. 1999-2000 31/3/1999 30/4/2000 5. 2000-01 --- 30/4/2001 6. 2001-02 --- 30/4/2002 7. 2002-03 --- 30/4/2003 :4: 4. The appellant had clearly pointed out that from the academic year 2000-01 onwards she was continued without appointment order and at the end of each academic year her service came to be terminated. She also pointed out that she was given the regular payscale of Rs.1640-40-2000 and the same payscale was shown in the discharge certificate and she was shown to be a permanent teacher as per the certificate dated 22/2/2002 on the basic salary of Rs.1760/-. 5. The justification which the petitioners had given before the School Tribunal for these continued temporary appointments in a long period of seven years was that the School was being run on experimental basis and, therefore, all the posts were filled in on temporary basis. This explanation furnished cannot be accepted and more so it was never a case made out that either these appointments were against a reserved post or against a leave vacancy. The Tribunal, therefore, recorded a finding that the appellant was appointed against a clear and permanent vacancy and she was duly qualified to be appointed as an Assitant Teacher :5: having worked for seven academic years and on the post which was not reserved and which was held to be the permanent vacant post, the Tribunal held that the appellant had obtained the status of a deemed permanent teacher within the meaning of Section 5(2) of the M.E.P.S. Act, 1977. The School Tribunal while granting the relief relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pasupuleti Venkateshwari vs. Motors and Genel Traders, Rypcrted [AIR 1975 SC 1409]. It was not the case of the petitioners that the proposal of appellant’s appointment was sent to the Education Officer at any time and the same was rejected on any ground. 6. The reasoning set out by the School Tribunal while allowing the appeal filed by the respondent no.1 cannot be termed as perverse or patently erroneous so as to call for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution and, therefore, this petition must fail. It must also be noted that the petitioners did not comply with the order to deposit the wages. :6: 7. Hence, the petition is hereby rejected summarily. Ad-interim order stands vacated. 8. In view of the above, Civil Application No. 1897 of 2004 does not survive and shall stand disposed as such. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)