1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2374/2007 Sanjay Devidas Kadu ..vs.. Jivan Vikas Shikshan Sanstha, Morshi and ors. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- R. V. MORE, J. DATED :- 24 th January, 2008. 1. Heard Mr. Karmarkar, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Sadavarte, Advocate for respondent No. 1 and Ms. Taiwade, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. The petitioner takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the School Tribunal whereby the petitioner's appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 challenging his termination order dated 10.08.1996 came to be dismissed. 3. The School Tribunal held that the petitioner's appointment is not approved by the Education Officer. The Tribunal also held that the petitioner's appointment was made as per Section 5(a) of the M.E.P.S. Act, 1977. The Tribunal, however, concluded that the 2 termination is not illegal. 4. Mr. Karmarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in St. Ulai High School & Another ..vs.. Shri Devendraprasad Jagannath Singh & Another; 2007 (1) Mh. L. J. 597 and contended that the decision in Anna Manikrao Pethe ..Vs.. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati and Aurangabad Division, Amravati and others; 1997 (3) Mh. L. J. 697 to the extent it held that the appeal is not maintainable before the School Tribunal at the behest of employee where services has not been approved, is already overruled. In these circumstances, he contended that the matter deserves to be remanded back to the School Tribunal. 5. Per contra, Mr. Sadavarte, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that the Tribunal also framed issue viz. “Whether the appellant proved that respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 terminated his services illegally by oral termination order dated 10.08.1996 and it is required to be quashed and set aside” and this issue is answered in the negative. Mr. Sadavarte, relied upon finding recorded by the School Tribunal on this issue and contended that 3 firstly the petitioner's appointment is not as per the provisions of Schedule “D” of M.E.P.S. Act, 1977 and secondly the petitioner was appointed for a fixed period temporarily. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the impugned order coupled with the judgment cited supra, I am of the opinion that the petition is devoid of any substance. 7. Mr. Karmarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner was right in contending that want of approval will not invalidate the appointment order, in view of the Full Bench Judgment cited supra. However, in the light of the finding recorded by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal on the issue about illegality of the termination order, I am not inclined to interfere in the aforesaid writ petition. 8. The learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, after perusal of the appointment orders recorded finding that the same was not issued in accordance with the provisions of Schedule “D” of the M.E.P.S. Rules 1981. The learned Presiding Officer, in this regard relied upon judgment of this Court in Ashok Gabane ..vs.. 4 Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur, 2002 (4) Mh. L. J. 225. Under the provisions of Schedule “D”, the appointment is required to be issued by the Secretary of the School Committee and the School Tribunal recorded finding that the same is issued by the Secretary of the Society. 9. The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, after perusal of two appointment orders, recorded the finding that the first appointment order was for the fixed period between 05.12.1994 to 06.05.1995 and the second appointment was also for fixed period between 01.07.1995 to 30.04.1996. The School Tribunal also found that the petitioner was not given any appointment order for the academic year 1996-97 and, therefore, concluded that he cannot be said to be in service during the academic year 1996-97. In view of this finding, the contention of the petitioner that he was terminated with effect from 10.08.1996, is purely imaginary and without any support. 10. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the petitioner ought to have challenged the termination immediately on 30.04.1996. However, he has not challenged the same. The School 5 Tribunal after hearing both the sides came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to prove that his services were terminated illegally. In that view of the matter, I do not find any need to remand the matter back to the School Tribunal. 11. The petition, in my opinion, is devoid of any substance. The same is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE kahale