1. The petition challenges two orders passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal Nos. 162 of 1997 and 164 of 1997. The only thing that can be deciphered from these two orders is that the appeals filed by the petitioner have been dismissed. The order of the School Tribunal distorts the facts and is bereft of any reasons.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Librarian by the respondent by an order dated 22.9.1993. This order mentions that she had been appointed as a full time Librarian consequent upon her application made to the respondents. The appointment was to take effect from 6.10.1993. Clause 2 of this appointment order clearly mentions that her appointment was on probation for a period of two years. The appointment order has been issued by the Head Master of the school. Clause 3 of the appointment order mentions that the terms and conditions of service were governed by the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules made thereunder. The petitioner has contended that she was directed to sign an agreement which was executed on a stamp paper worth Rs.10/- on 20.9.1994. By this agreement, the petitioner had agreed that she was appointed against a reserved post. On 24.3.1995, a letter was issued to her by respondent No.2 informing her that her appointment was approved only from 13.6.1994 as a Full Time Librarian in the school upto the end of academic year 1994-95 and would come to an end on 30.4.1995.. On 1.8.1995 another letter was issued to the workman informing her that respondent Nos.1 and 2 had received candidates from the Backward Classes for being appointed as Librarian and, therefore, the petitioner’s services would be terminated on 1.9.1995. The petitioner then preferred an appeal before the School Tribunal, Nashik. That appeal was transferred to the School Tribunal, Navi Mumbai and numbered afresh as Appeal No.164 of 1995.

3. While the appeal was pending, a letter dated 21.10.1995 was issued by the respondent No.1 informing her that the management had reconsidered its decision to terminate her services and that, therefore, they were reinstating her. A resolution to that effect had been passed by the management of the school. The petitioner, by her letter dated 6.11.1995 informed respondent Nos.1 and 2 that she was reporting for duty with immediate effect, pursuant to the letter of the management dated 21.10.1995 which had been received by her on 26.10.1995. On 8.11.1995, the petitioner informed the management that she would withdraw the appeal filed before the School Tribunal. By another letter of the same date, she requested the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to sanction her leave from 9.11.1995 to 19.11.1995 due to her impending delivery. Thereafter on 23.11.1995 the petitioner requested the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to grant her maternity leave from 20.11.1995 on which date she had delivered a child. She sought maternity leave of three months as available under the M.E.P.S. Rules. There is no dispute that such leave was granted to the petitioner.

4. On 19.2.1996, respondent Nos.1 and 2 acknowledged that the petitioner had resumed her duty after being on maternity leave. However, they called upon her to explain as to why she had not withdrawn the appeal pending before the School Tribunal. By her letter dated 2.3.1996, the petitioner called upon the respondents to permit her to sign the muster roll which she had been prevented from signing from 23.2.1996. The petitioner informed respondent Nos.1 and 2 that she would withdraw the appeal on 2.4.1996. As the petitioner was not permitted to sign the muster roll after 23.2.1996, it led to her filing another appeal before the School Tribunal, Nashik which was subsequently transferred to Navi Mumbai and numbered afresh as Appeal No.162 of 1997.

5. A written statement was filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in Appeal No.162 of 1997 (the second appeal) contending that the petitioner’s services were not terminated and in fact she had