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 statu