( 1 ) DHARMADHIKARI B. P. , J. : - Heard Shri Bhandarkar, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Khan, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

( 2 ) BY this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of india, the petitioner employer challenges the Order dated 27-1-1993 passed by the School Tribunal in appeal under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, (hereinafter referred to as M. E. P. T. Act), preferred by present respondent No. 2. respondent no. 2 complained of termination of his services in violation of provisions of M. E. P. S. Act and filed said appeal. The School Tribunal has allowed the said appeal and has directed the petitioner to reinstate him on the post of assistant Teacher. Though this Court has admitted the petition for final hearing, no interim orders are passed and as such, respondent No. 2, who has been reinstated is continuing in service even today.

( 3 ) SHRI Bhandarkar, Advocate for the petitioner invites attention of this court to the appointment order dated 4-8-1987 by which respondent No. 2 came to be appointed as Lecturer/instructor in Electronics as purely temporary employee for 1987-88 Session. He also shows the second appointment order dated 1-9-1988 by which again, he has been given appointment as purely temporary employee for 1988-89 Session. Respondent No. 2 thereafter filed appeal challenging his oral termination with effect from 20-4-89 and 20- 6-1989 or 2-9-1989. The grievance of respondent No. 2 is that he was not permitted to engage classes after 20-4-1989 and he was informed about his termination on 20-6-1989 and 2-9-1989. Respondent No. 2 is teaching Electronics and his case is that he was appointed against a clear vacancy and as such he could not have been discontinued orally. He further contended that after completion of two years, he became permanent and in any case his services were terminated in contravention of Rule 28 (1) of the Maharashtra employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as M. E. P. S. Rules)

( 4 ) THE petitioner opposed this appeal before the School Tribunal by pointing out that respondent No. 2 was not appointed against any permanent vacancy. The petitioner stated that respondent No. 2 was appointed in purely temporary capacity for specific period and he was not employee after the expiry of that period. It is contended that his services came to an end automatically at the end of session. It is further stated that he was paid salary of rs. 1,200/- per month and it was a fixed salary. The management contended that respondent No. 2 accepted all this and therefore he could not be permitted to turn around challenging his specific contract of service. Shri Bhandarkar, advocate for the petitioner contended that in this background the School tribunal considered Rule 10 of the M. E. P. S. Rules which defines temporary employee and has drawn inference that respondent No. 2 was appointed on clear and permanent post and as such he was appointed on probation for a period of two years from the date of joining of his duties. The School Tribunal has further found that respondent No. 2 was entitled to be continued even after the end of session and, therefore, he was entitled to be continued in 1989-90 Session on probation up to 4-8-1989. It is in this background that the School Tribunal has granted relief to respondent No. 2.

( 5 ) SHRI Bhandarkar, Advocate contends that the inference of appointment of respondent No. 2 against clear and permanent post as drawn by the School tribunal is unwarranted. He invites attention of the Court to the proforma of appointment of order given in Schedule "d" of M. E. P. S. Rules and states that the order of appointment of probationer and order of appointment as temporary employee are required to be issued in different formats and as the Subject of Electronics was newly introduced and was to be closed down, the petitioner app