The appointment of the petitioner was found to be on a purely temporary basis and not in a permanent vacancy, emphasizing the need for compliance with prescribed appointment procedures under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act.

1. Shri A.S.Mardikar, Adv. for the petitioner, Shri Sonare, APP, for Respondent Nos.1 & 3 and Shri A.Z.Jibhkate, Adv. For Respondent Nos. 2 & 4.

Rule. Made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner herein seeks to challenge the order passed by the School Tribunal, Nagpur, in Appeal No. STC/26/01, dated 10th December, 2008, by which her appeal under Section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act was dismissed.

3. The facts leading to this petition can be briefly stated thus The petitioner was working as a teacher in the school run by Respondent Nos. 2 & 4. Respondent No.2 is a registered Education Society. Respondent No.2 runs respondent no. 4 School. It is contended that same is run on “grant-in-aid” basis. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher by Respondent No. 2 as she was qualified teacher. She was selected and appointed and was directed to join her duties w.e.f. 1.12.1997 initially. Her name was incorporated in the muster-roll. On 1.6.1998, she was appointed on probation w.e.f. 1.6.1998 to 30.5.2000. The proposal of such appointment was submitted to the Education Officer-Respondent no.3. It is alleged that she was appointed on probation for a period of two years as stated in her appointment order. It is further contended that she had unblemished service throughout. Her work and behaviour was good. There were no adverse communications issued by her during her service. Another appointment order was issued by the respondent management stating that her services are continued from 5.7.2000 to 30.4.2001. It is alleged that as the petitioner had completed her probation period satisfactorily on 30.5.2000, her services become permanent and she had acquired a status of “permanent employee”. Therefore, according to her, her services could not be terminated by giving one month notice. According to the petitioner, her services were liable for termination only after due inquiry and by following mandatory provisions of Rule 33 to 37. Therefore, the termination order issued to the petitioner, dated 28.03.2001 having effect from 30.4.2001 was illegal and bad in law. She, therefore. challenged this termination order in her appeal under Section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act.

4. The Education Officer - respondent no.2 herein, filed reply in the said appeal. It was not denied that the respondent management had submitted the proposal to the Education Officer for approval to the appointment of the petitioner. The said approval was granted on 1.7.1998 for two years of probation. According to the Education Officer, she was senior-most teacher and therefore, as she had completed her probation period and there was no inquiry pending against her, her termination, as was done by the respondent management; was illegal. Therefore, the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Bhandara, supported the case of the petitioner and claimed that he is not responsible for the termination of the petitioner.

5. Respondent nos. 2 & 4 herein, filed a reply in the said appeal proceedings and admitted that the said school is run by the respondent Society. It was contended that recognition to the said school was granted by the Education Department on year to year basis. As at the relevant time, the recognition to the school was granted on year to year basis, there was no question of appointment of any teacher for two years, even on probation. According to these respondents, Education Officer first time granted recognition with “grant-in-aid” on 1.7.1998. It was granted only till 30.6.1999. Thereafter again it was granted from 1.7.1999 to 30.6.2000. Last order regarding recognition was for the period 1.7.2000 to 30.6.2001. Further order of recognition for the session 20012002 was not received (at the time of filing of that reply) and therefore, the petitioner could not get a status of “permanent employee”. It was also contended that termination order issued to the petitioner was issued after following the due proced