ORDER

Since respondent No. 1, it is reported, has refused to receive the notice, it must be deemed to be sufficient notice. Respondent Nos. 5 and 7 have been served. But they are appearing neither in person nor through counsel.

Leave granted.

2. Since the respondents are appearing neither in person nor through counsel, we have taken the assistance of Shri Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and gone through the relevant rules and orders of appointment. The admitted position is that respondent No.1 came to be appointed on June 10, 1992 against a clear vacancy with the following stipulation :

"Your appointment is purely temporary for a period of 11 months from 11.6.1992 to 10.5.1993 in the clear vacancy. After expiry of the above period your service shall stand terminated without any notice."

4. Thus, it could be seen that the appointment of the first respondent was only a temporary appointment against a clear vacancy. The appointments are regulated and controlled by the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. Section 5 of the Act postulates as under :

"5. Certain obligations of Managements of Private Schoo