Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2691 of 2005 Shri Zakirhusen Ahamadsaheb Kothavale ...Petitioner V/s. The President & Ors. Chiplun Education Society Chiplun. ...Respondents Mr.Avinash Fatangare for the Petitioner CORAM CORAM CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. DATED DATED DATED : 8th January, 2008 : 8th January, 2008 : 8th January, 2008 P.C. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner who is aggrieved by the Judgement and Order dated 30-11-2004 rendered by the School Tribunal at Kolhapur thereby dismissing Appeal No. 74/2002 filed by the petitioner. In the said Appeal he had challenged the notice of termination dated 20-3-2002 on the grounds that he had attained the status of permanent teacher within the meaning of Section 5(2) of the MEPS Act, 1977 and his appointment as an Arts teacher was against the permanent available vacancy. He also claimed that he had worked in four continuous academic years i.e. 1998-99 (2nd session), 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. He also relied upon the Experience Certificate dated 1-3-2002 which also tend to show that he was an Arts teacher in 2 the said school (Maharashtra High School, Chiplun) in the four academic years. 2. On notice the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Ratnagiri had appeared before the School Tribunal and submitted written reply. As per the Education Officer the Petitioner was appointed on temporary basis from 16-10-1998 in the academic year 1998-99 and on the same basis he was continued in the next 3 academic years. His tenure of appointment in the academic year 2001-02 came to an end by efflux of time as mentioned hereinabove. The Education Officer further pointed out that the Petitioner was not appointed against any sanctioned post (vacancy) and, therefore, his claim that he had attained the status of deemed permanent teacher could not be accepted. Respondent Nos. 1,2&4 representing the management had also filed written-statement at Exhibit 11. It was contended that during the academic year 2000-2001 the petitioner was continued on temporary basis for a fixed tenure and as a part time Arts teacher, however, in the academic year 2001-02 in anticipation of approval for the IXth standard the petitioner was appointed and he was specifically informed that the said appointment was subject to approval by the Education Officer (Secondary) and in any case the said appointment order dated 15-5-2000 was for the period from 12-6-2000 to 3 30-4-2001. 3. The School Tribunal after hearing all the parties and considering the documents on record held that the Petitioner was never appointed as a full time Arts teacher on probation. His temporary appointment was also not against the sanctioned post. He was not appointed on probation at any time and,therefore, he could not claim or obtain the status of a deemed permanent teacher more so when the appointment letter issued to him in each academic year clearly stated that his appointment was part time and temporary for a fixed period, in the academic year 1999-2000. Even if it is accepted that for the subsequent two academic years his appointment was not on part time basis, the fact remains that he was a temporary appointment and not on probation. There was nothing on record to point out that the management had advertised a vacancy for an Arts teacher on full time basis and interviews were held and in the selection process, the petitioner was selected for his appointment. The management rightly relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Shri S.V.Patil Shri S.V.Patil Shri S.V.Patil V/s. V/s. V/s. Maharashtra Education Society Udgir (2001 II CLR Maharashtra Education Society Udgir (2001 II CLR Maharashtra Education Society Udgir (2001 II CLR page page page 729) 729) 729) and more particularly the following observations; "To take advantage of this provision of Section 5 4 of the MEPS Act, first it must be proved that the appointment was purely on temporary basis. It is already pointed out that 2 appointment letters were for the leave vacancy and not permanent vacancy. The petitioner somehow continued in service after 1-6-1982. But there again, there is nothing on record to show that he was continued to fill in the permanent vacancy.......". 4. The reasoning set out by the School Tribunal in dismissing the Appeal, therefore, does not suffer from any errors apparent on the face of the record so as to call for any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution in the impugned Judgement of the School Tribunal. The Petition must,therefore, fail at the threshold and the same is hereby rejected summarily. [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.]