JUDGMENT:- Both these writ petitions are filed by the Employer challenging the judgment of the School Tribunal, granting relief of reinstatement to the employees. The question about the effect of temporary appointment or time bound appointment made by the management vis-a-vis the provisions of Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) arise in both these writ petitions.

2. In Writ Petition No. 1407 of 1997, challenge is to the judgment of School Tribunal dated 2-5-1997 by which the School Tribunal has allowed the appeal of Respondent No.2 employee and has directed the management to reinstate him back in service with continuity and back wages. This Court has while issuing notice in the matter ordered parties to maintain status quo and said order continues to operate till today. The said order was later on clarified while issuing Rule. It appears that thereafter vacancy became available and hence this Court on 10-10-2003 directed the management to appoint Respondent No.2 - employee against that vacancy. The said order has been set aside by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No.37 of 2004 on 29-03-2004 observing that in earlier L.P.A. No.31 of 1998, the earlier order of learned Single Judge restricting stay only to back wages was set aside and the Division Bench there continued the interim order dated 23-03-1998 till disposal of Writ Petition No.1407 of 1997. Thus, Respondent No.2 in this petition is out of employment.

3. In Writ Petition No. 1355 of 1996, the management has challenged the judgment of School Tribunal dated 15-04-1996 by which the School Tribunal has granted relief of reinstatement with continuity and back wages to Respondent No.1 - employee. This Court has on 22-07-1996 only issued Rule in the matter and Respondent No.1 is currently in service. He has put in about 16 years of service and he is now a duly approves! employee by education department.

4. The grievance made by Respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No.1407 of 1997, before the School Tribunal in Appeal was that he was working as Assistant Teacher since 1988 and he was given year to year appointment for the year 1988-89 and 1989-90. He was given appointment against sanctioned post from 01-07 -1990 to 30-04-1991 and thereafter was again reappointed in next session from 01-07-1991 to 30-04-1992. He contended that he was restrained from signing the muster roll from 11-06-1992 and he is deemed confirmed employee belonging to Other Backward Class Category. It is his case that he was attending the School regularly but he was orally informed that he was terminated from 30-04-1992. The said Appeal was opposed by the present petitioners, who contended that Respondent No.2 was initially appointed for the months on no grant basis with effect from December, 1988 to April, 1989 and thereafter in October, 1989 till 30-04-1990 for seven months. He was not paid salary for vacation and thereafter he was appointed as stop gap arrangement from 0107 -1990 to 30-04-1991 for 10 months on temporary basis and at the end of that period his service stood terminated automatically. It is mentioned that this appointment was made as per letter of Deputy Director of Education dated 14-01-1992. As per similar letter of Deputy Director of Education, Respondent No.2 was again appointed from 01-07-1991 to 3004-1992 temporarily. They denied that appointment was in clear vacancy and stated that he was given one month's notice on 2603-1992 and informed that he stood terminated from 30-04-1992. The said notice when tendered to him, was refused by Respondent No.2 on 27-03-1992 and hence it was forwarded under certificate of posting to him. They also denied that he was deemed confirmed employee and further denied that he was attending the school regularly. They denied the story of oral termination and also denied that his service record was clean and unblemished. They stated that appeal as filed was time barred

Click Here to Read the rest of this document