Rule made returnable forthwith.

Heard the matter finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

2. This petition challenges the order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal No. STC/81/2003, deciding a preliminary issue and holding that the appointment of the respondent no.1 – employee was as per the provisions of Section 5 of M.E.P.S. Act read with Rule 9 (9) of the Rules framed thereunder. The order holds that the respondent no.1 – employee belongs to Scheduled Caste category and though he was appointed against a vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate, there was no restriction for making an appointment of a candidate belonging to another reserved category, if the candidate belonging to category for which the post is reserved is not available.

3. The petition also challenges the ultimate judgment and order dated 06.01.2012 passed by the School Tribunal in the said Appeal, holding that the initial appointment of the respondent no.1 – employee on 01.07.2000 has to be treated as on probation for a period of two years and since the respondent no.1 – employee was continued in service beyond 30.06.2002, he had acquired the status of a permanent teacher. It has been held that the services of a permanent employee could have been terminated only by following the procedure laid down in Rule 36 and 37 of the M.E.P.S. Rules and since the procedure was not followed while terminating the services, the order of termination has been quashed and set aside. The respondent no.1 – employee is directed to be reinstated in service with continuity and full backwages. Hence, the management is before this Court.

4. The undisputed factual position is as under;

The respondent no.1 – Kawadu Pandurangji Ghutake was initially appointed by a order dated 04.10.1999 as a lecturer in junior college run by the petitioner society for a period of one year from 04.10.1999 to the end of the session in the year 2000. This appointment was pursuant to an advertisement issued on 30.09.1999. The proposal for appointment of the respondent no.1 – employee was forwarded to the Deputy Director of Education, who has refused to grant his approval by an order dated 27th March, 2000, holding that the candidate for appointment to the post of lecturer in Sociology from Nomadic Tribe (C) category was available at the time of interview, but still the respondent no.1 – employee has been appointed leaving the backlog of the said category. The respondent no.1 – employee was thereafter continued by separate order of appointment dated 01.07.2000 on temporary basis for a period of one year i.e. upto the end of the Session 2001. Again approval to this appointment was rejected by the Deputy Director of Education by his order dated 13th October, 2000, holding that the backlog of the reserved category candidate has not been fulfilled. The respondent no.1 – employee thereafter was again issued a fresh order of appointment for the period from 02.07.2001 till 30.04.2002. Since he was prevented from signing the muster roll w.e.f. 18.08.2003, he approached the School Tribunal under Section 9 of M.E.P.S. Act, by filing Appeal No. STC/81/2003, treating it as otherwise termination and claiming reinstatement with continuity and backwages.

5. The Management in response to the memo of appeal took the stand that the appointment of the respondent no.1 – employee was against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate. According to the Management, the Deputy Director of Education has refused to grant approval to the appointment of respondent no.1 – employee on the ground that there exists a backlog of Nomadic Tribe (C) category and the petitioner did not belong to the said category. It was denied that the appointment of the respondent no.1 – employee was in a clear and permanent vacancy and the stand was taken that his appointment was against the post reserved for Schedule Tribe candidate, which was made on year to year basis without conferri