This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 8.10.1999 rendered by the School Tribunal in Appeal No.9 of 2006, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (for short "MEPS Act"), has been dismissed. The petitioner, in the appeal, had challenged his termination order, which was passed on the ground that he was not holding the prescribed qualification. The school tribunal after having considered overall facts and circumstances of the case and the relevant provisions of MEPS Act and the Rules framed thereunder dismissed the appeal. In paragraphs 17 and 19 the school tribunal observed thus:

"17. .... .... .... In the present matter, the appellant was untrained and the Deputy Director of Education has given relaxation to his qualification and accorded approval to his appointment on year to year basis only. Therefore, the appellant cannot acquire status of permanent teacher, even though the management of the respondent no.1 has given his appointment order dated 11.6.1992 with effect from 15.6.1992 on probation for a period of 2 academic years 1992 to 1994. Because the said appointment order is against the provisions of Section 5(1) of MEPS Act. Even though appointment order dated 11.6.1992 is given by the respondent no.1 to the appellant on probation for the period of 2 years the Deputy Director of Education has approved it from year to year purely on temporary basis. It is also pertinent to note that the appellant was appointed temporarily for 2 academic years 1990-91 and 1991-92 by issuing 2 separate orders. But as soon as period of appointment orders mentioned in the said appointment orders expired, at the same moment, the services of the appellant automatically came to an end. Because in case of temporary appointment order, even notice under Rule 28 (1) of MEPS Rules 1981 is not required to be given by the management to the teacher after expiry of period of temporary appointment. Subsequently the appointment order dated 11.9.1992 on probation for the period of two years with effect from 15.6.1992 was issued. But the Deputy Director of Education has granted approval to his appointment from year to year basis purely on temporary basis. Therefore, the appellant does not acquire permanent status. In 1997 (3) Maharashtra Law Journal, page 697, Anna Manikrao Pethe V. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Aamarawati and Others, the Hon’ble Division Bench of Bombay High Court bench at Nagpur, has clearly held that temporary appointees are not entitled to claim permanent status unless such permanent vacancies are filled in as per section 5 of the Act, temporary appointees can have no grievance. Therefore, in view of the above said ruling, it is clear that, the appellant was not appointed by the management as an Asst. Teacher in the Junior College of Commerce as per section 5 of the MEPS Act. As the appellant was not only qualified to be appointed as an Asst.Teacher in Junior College, because he was not possessing B.Ed. degree. Therefore, in view of Schedule "B" III (1)(d), the appellant cannot acquire permanent status as a teacher.

19. In this matter, it is admitted position that Commerce faculty of Junior College has been closed down, and the appellant was juniormost teacher in the said faculty of Commerce, therefore, the management has terminated his services."

2. The factual matrix that may be relevant and necessary for deciding this petition is as follows:

The petitioner came to be appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Junior College, run by respondent no.1 - institution vide letter dated 11.7.1990. The petitioner was holding the qualification of M.Com and M.Phil at the relevant time. He was assigned the subjects of Commerce, i.e. Secretarial practise and Accountancy. He worked for the entire academic year 1990-91. From 19.6.1991 the petitioner came to be appointed as a full time teache