1. The Petitioners conduct a post basic Ashram School for Secondary School Standards, namely Standards VIII to X. The School Tribunal held by its order dated 26th March 2008 that the action of the Petitioners in preventing the Respondent from signing the Muster Roll with effect from 8th September 2007 was illegal and issued a direction that the Respondent should be reinstated with consequential benefits.

2. When the petition came up for admission on 10th October 2008, the submission that was urged before the Court was that in view of the provisions of Section 2(21) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the judgments of Learned Single Judges of this Court in Dr.Narendra Bhiwapaurkar Andha Vidyala vs. Shoba Laxman Pachkawade, 2004(1) Mh. L.J. 18 and St.Francis Industrial Training Institute vs. P.J. Jose, 2007 (1) Mh. L.J. 570, the School Tribunal had no jurisdiction, inasmuch as the Petitioner-Institute was not recognized either by the Director of Education, the State Board or the Divisional Board and it was hence not a “private school” within the meaning of the Act. An appeal under Section 9 can only lie at the behest of an employee of 'private school'. Though in the Written Statement filed in reply to the Memo of Appeal, the jurisdiction of the School Tribunal was not questioned, the issue has been considered since it goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the School Tribunal.

3. The question before the Court is not res integra, and is governed by the judgment of a Full Bench in Suryakant Sheshrao Panchal vs. Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jati Bhatakya Jamati Aadarsh Prasarak Mandal, 2002(5) Bom.C.R. 95. Before enunciating the law laid down by the Full Bench, it must be noted that an appeal under Section 9 is maintainable at the behest of an employee of a private school who is dismissed, removed, terminated, reduced in rank or superseded by the management. The expression “private school” is defined by Section 2(20) to mean a recognized school established or administered by a management, other than the Government or a local authority. Section 2(21) defines the expression “recognized” to mean “recognized by the Director, the Divisional Board or the State Board, or by any officer authorised by him or by any of such Boards”. The “Divisional Board” and the “State Board” are defined in Sections 2(6A) and 2(25). These Boards are established under the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Act, 1965. These definitions establish that in order to be a private school, a school must be conducted by a private management and must be recognized by one of the authorities or Boards. In Suryakant Panchal's case, the Full Bench held that while a Primary Ashram School is not recognized by one of the stipulated authorities, a post basic Ashram School from Standards VIII to X would be amenable to the jurisdiction of the School Tribunal under Section 9 since it would obviously be recognized by the “State Board” as defined in Section 2 (25) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The Full Bench summarized the position as follows: “Secondary or Higher Secondary Ashram Schools or Blind Schools are “private schools” within the meaning of section 2(20) of the MEPS Act and any employee of such a school has a remedy of an appeal under section 9 of the said Act.”

4. In the present case, it has not been disputed before the Court by Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners that the Second Petitioner is (i) A Post-Basic Ashram School teaching Secondary students from Standards from VIII to X; and (ii) Students of the school are accepted by the Divisional Board for the Board Examination. In view of the decision of the Full Bench, an employee of such a school, namely, a Post Basic Ashram School imparti