1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.5774/2007 Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs. Ku. Varsha Pundlikrao Mandhare and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Mr. R. L. Khapre, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. A. Naik, Adv. for respondent no.1. Mr. D.B. Patel, A.G.P. for respondent no.2. CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE, J. ORDER RESERVED ON :13/8/2008. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 21/8/2008. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner challenges orders dated 13.11.2007 passed by School Tribunal, Amravati in Appeal Nos. 37/2006 and 35/2006 allowing the appeals filed by respondent no.1 under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service) Regulation Act (“the Act” for short). Briefly, the facts leading to filing of this petition are as under:- The petitioner appointed respondent no.1 as teacher on probation in the school run by it with effect from 16.7.2000 pursuant to the advertisement dated 5.7.2000 issued by the petitioner inviting applications for the post of Assistant Teacher. According to petitioner, the post was 2 reserved for SC, ST and VJ candidate and the respondent no.1 belongs to N.T. which is not disputed by respondent no.1. Since respondent no.1 did not belong the SC, ST or NT, the services of respondent no.1 were terminated by the petitioner by order dated 31.8.2005. Prior to her termination respondent no.1 filed Writ Petition No.33/2004 challenging the order passed by Education Officer refusing approval to her appointment as Assistant Teacher which was allowed by this Court by order dated 18.8.2005. Pursuant to the said order the Education Officer granted approval to the services of respondent no.1 as Shikshan Sevak for an initial period of three years and thereafter as Assistant Teacher. Respondent no.1 filed Appeal No. 37/2005 challenging her termination. In the said appeal interim relief was granted in favour of respondent no.1. Thereafter by order dated 29.4.2006 the petitioner again terminated services of respondent no.1 w. e. f. 1.5.2006. Respondent no.1 challenged the same by filing Appeal No. 35/2006 before School Tribunal, Amravati. After hearing both sides the School Tribunal allowed both appeals by two separate orders dated 13.11.2007 which are being challenged by the Management by filing the present petition. After the termination of services of respondent no.1 the petitioner appointed Angulimal Kasture by order dated 3 1.7.2006. Mr. Khapre, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside on the following grounds:- (i) The post to which respondent no.1 was appointed was reserved for SC, ST or VJ candidate and since admittedly respondent no.1 belonged to NT, the services of respondent no.1 were rightly terminated. (ii) The appointment letter was issued by the President and not by the Head Master and as such appointment of respondent no.1 was not valid. (iii) The appointment of respondent no.1 was not in accordance with rules. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in Chandramani Devraj Tiwari vs. Secretary, Smt. R.B. Tiwari Sansktutik Kendra and others :2008(3) Mh.L.J.274 Per contra, Mr. Naik, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 supported the impugned orders on the following grounds:- (i) Pursuant to the order passed by this court in Writ Petition No. 199/2008 filed by respondent no.1, approval for the services of respondent no.1 as Assistant Teacher has been granted by the Education Officer which has not been challenged by the petitioner. There is a presumption that the approval has been rightly granted. 4 (ii) The appointment of respondent no.1 was on probation and in accordance with the Rules. Reliance has been placed by Mr. Naik on the following judgments:- 1. Chairman Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Shikshan Sanstha & another vs Chandrashekhar S. Giwari & others : 2007 (4) Mh.L.J. 68 2. Hindi Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai and others vs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal Mumbai and others : 2007 (6) Mh. L. J. 563. Mr. Mirza, learned A. G. P. supported the impugned orders. Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the record, I find no merit in the petition. The approval to the services of respondent no.1 was granted by the Education Officer which has become final in the absence of any challenge by the petitioner. Mr. Naik is right in contending that there is presumption that the approval has been granted by the Education Officer by following the Rules. Hence, I find no force in the contention of Mr. Khapre that the appointment of respondent no.1 was not in terms of the Rules. The respondent no.1 having been appointed on probation by following the Rules the petitioner could not have been terminated her services on the ground that she was appointed 5 to the post reserved for SC, ST or NT candidate, and, therefore, she was not eligible to be appointed. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in any of the submissions made by Mr. Khapre. Hence the petition is rejected with costs in favour of respondent no.1 quantified at Rs. 1500/- (Rs. One thousand five hundred only). JUDGE Ambulkar.