1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.1382 of 1998 Baliram Sitaram Rongate Petitioner Vs. President, Adivasi Vidya Prasarak Samaj, Nashik & ors. Respondents Mr.R.S.Apte for petitioner. Mr.Niranjan Shimpi i/b. Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar for resp.nos.1 & 2. Mr.A.P.Vanarse, AGP for resp.no.4. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. January 25, 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. This petition impugns the judgment and order dated 6/1/1998 rendered by the School Tribunal at Nashik thereby dismissing Appeal No.16 of 1996 filed by the petitioner. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal contending that he was orally terminated from reporting for duty on 13/4/1996 was not paid his salary for February 1996 and he was initially appointed from 10/10/1994 and, therefore, the oral termination was illegal. 2. The management filed its written statement and 2 opposed the appeal. It pointed out that the appellant was a relation of the Chairman and was appointed on temporary basis by way of stop gap arrangement and as a Kamathi at the hostel run by Adivasi Vidya Prasarak Mandal and he was not employee at the respondent no.2 - school. The written statement also pointed out that he was not in continuous service and was appointed on temporary basis for two different periods. The management further denied the allegations that the appellant attained the status of a deemed permanent employee within the meaning of Section 5(2) of the MEPS Act, 1977 ("the Act" for short). 3. After hearing both the parties and considering the undisputed documents, the Tribunal at the first instance agreed that the appellant was appointed as a Kamathi. Consequently he could not be called as an employee as defined under Section 2(7) of the Act and hence the appeal filed by him under Section 9 of the Act was not maintainable. The Tribunal did not stop here itself and rightly proceeded to consider the case of the appellant on merits as well. 4. With its written statement the management had 3 brought on record two appointment orders. The first appointment order dated 27/3/1995 indicated that he was appointed on temporary basis from 15/10/94 to 30/4/95 and the second appointment order dated 1/6/95 indicated that he was appointed from 1/6/95 to 30/5/96. This falsified the appellant’s case that he was appointed by oral orders. It was the case of the management further that the appellant himself stopped reporting to duty from 16/3/96 and, therefore, there was no question of preventing the appellant from reporting to duty from 13/4/96 as alleged by him. The appointment letters brought on record by the management were not disputed and these letters clearly indicated that the appellant was never appointed on probation. The record also indicated that he never went through any selection process nor was there any advertisement for the post of Kamathi ever released by the management. The appellant was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange in response to the requisition sent by the management. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the appointment of the appellant was not as per the requirements of Section 5(1) of the Act and hence his attaining the status of deemed permanency within the meaning of Section 5(2) of the said Act was a far cry. 4 5. Viewed from any angle, the appellant could not claim reinstatement in service on the ground that he was illegally removed from service by oral orders. He was a temporary appointee and his tenure was to expire on 31/5/1996. Even in the earlier academic year he was employed only for a few months and in any case he did not complete a continuous service of two years so as to claim that on completion of such period of more than two years he was deemed to be a permanent employee. 6. Hence this petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs. (B.H.MARL