1. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the Counsel for the respondent.

2. Petitioner no.1 is a registered public trust. Petitioner no.2 is a school run by the petitioner no.1. Respondent No.1 is a teacher. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner is referred to as “the management” and respondent no.2 is referred as “the teacher”.

3. The petitioners are challenging the judgment and order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nashik, dated 9th September, 2008. By the said judgment and order, the Presiding Officer was pleased to allow the appeal which was filed by the respondent no.1 herein and was pleased to set aside the order of termination dated 5.6.2003 issued by the management and was pleased to further direct them to reinstate the respondent no.1 on the post of Assistant Teacher with 50% back wages along with consequential benefits attached to the said post.

Brief facts are as under:-

4. The services of respondent no.1 were terminated by the management by letter dated 5.6.2003. The respondent no.1 preferred an appeal before the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nashik. It was urged on behalf of the respondent no. 1 before the Tribunal that he was appointed initially as a Shikshan Sevak on 25th September, 2000 for a period of three years from 3.10.2000. It is his case that however, on the same date, the said order was changed and he was appointed as Assistant Teacher on probation for a period of two years. It was urged before the Tribunal that the respondent teacher had worked for a period of two years and eight months and had, therefore, deemed to be a permanent teacher and without holding any inquiry or issuing show cause notice, his services were illegally terminated by the management. It was contended by the management that the teacher had submitted false, fabricated and bogus documents and that the appointment of the teacher was illegal. The Education Officer also filed the reply stating that the appointment of the teacher was not as per the provisions of the Act and required workload was not observed and the quota of reserved category candidates was not filled up by the management.

5. The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nashik, by his judgment and order dated 30.6.2005, however, was pleased to allow the appeal filed by the respondent no.1 and by the said order, he set aside the order of termination of the teacher directing the management to reinstate in the post of Assistant Teacher with full back wages and benefits of continuity and seniority attached to the said post.

6. Against the said order, the management filed writ petition in this Court being Writ Petition No.9037/2005. This Court by judgment and order dated 30th August, 2007 was pleased to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and the matter was remanded back to the School Tribunal and a specific direction was given by this Court to decide whether the appointment of the teacher was legal and on other issues. After remand, the matter was again reheard by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal. However, by judgment and order dated 9.9.2008, the impugned order was passed.

7. Shri Sathaye, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the management submitted that the Tribunal had not taken into consideration the judgment in the case of Shivshakti Shikshan Sanstha Kotha (Veni) & another vs. Nilkanth Kawaduji Shivankar & another, reported in 2005 (2) Bombay C.R. Page 105 which was relied upon by the management and it was also noticed by the learned Single Judge in its order dated 30th August, 2007. He submitted that the other issues also which were raised in the reply filed by the management were not taken into consideration. He submitted that the qualifications of the teacher are B.A. (subject English) and B.P.Ed. from the Marathwada university. He submitted that the petitioner did not possess the necessary educational qualification to be appointed as Assistant Teacher. He submitted that the qualifications of the B.P.Ed. were n