The Petitioners have challenged the order of the School Tribunal dated 3.10.1997. Petitioner No.1 is the Institution which runs the school of which Petitioner No.3 is the Headmaster. Petitioner No.2 is the President of Petitioner No.1. The facts in the present case are not in dispute. Respondent No.1 was appointed on 26.7.1995. The appointment order issued to him mentioned that he was appointed temporarily from 28.7.1995 to 30.4.1996. According to the petitioners, Respondent No.1 submitted his resignation, but later filed an appeal before the School Tribunal being Appeal No.7 of 1996 alleging wrongful termination from service. It was contended by Respondent No.1 that he had been appointed against a clear permanent vacancy and, therefore, ought to have been appointed as a probationer rather than a temporary employee. It was further contended that he had not resigned from service but was in fact prevented from signing the muster roll. Respondent No.1 also pleaded that his appointment was made after following the procedure of advertising the post and selecting him in accordance with law. According to Respondent No.1, his termination from service was illegal as it was effected in breach of the MEPS Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

2. The petitioners filed their reply and pleaded that the appointment order indicated that Respondent No.1 had been appointed only for a temporary vacancy and that he was not entitled to any relief in the appeal. It was pointed out that the appointment of Respondent No.1 was not against a clear permanent vacancy. The petitioners also denied that they have compelled Respondent No.1 to submit his resignation. In fact, according to the Petitioners, the appellant had abandoned his service from 1.2.1996.

3. The School Tribunal has, after considering the pleadings on record and other material before it, held that Respondent No.1 had been appointed in accordance with law after undergoing a selection process. He was appointed in a clear permanent vacancy and, therefore, ought to have been appointed not, as a temporary workman but as a probationer in accordance with section 5(2). The School Tribunal rejected the plea of the petitioners that the respondent had voluntarily submitted his resignation. The Tribunal observed that the resignation was not placed on record and, therefore, disbelieved the petitioner’s contention. Apart from this, it was noticed that the petitioners had not placed on record any document indicating that they had accepted the resignation submitted by Respondent No.1. It is for these reasons that the Tribunal did not accept the contention of the petitioners that Respondent No.1 had resigned. The Tribunal did not consider the fact that Respondent No.1 was appointed in contravention of the Rules framed under the MEPS Act which stipulate that an employee must be appointed on probation for two years in a clear permanent vacancy. He cannot be appointed only for one year. The Tribunal then held that the services of Respondent No.1 had been terminated by the petitioners in violation of Rule 28 of the MEPS Rules. The Tribunal then granted reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages from 17.7.1996.

4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners by the learned advocate appearing for them that when the order of appointment discloses that the appointment was only for the period stipulated therein, the Tribunal has erred in concluding that Respondent No.1 was entitled to be reinstated in service. He submits that the period of employment was over on 30.4.1996 and the workman had stopped attending work after that date. According to the learned advocate, the workman can have no grievance especially since he has submitted his resignation on 31.1.1996 after which date he stopped reporting for duty. The learned Advocate submits that the appointment of Respondent No.1 being temporary, he was not entitled to any relief from the School Tribunal in view of the fact that the temporary p