1. Rule. Heard Shri A.S. Jaiswal, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri G.R. Agrawal, Advocate, for the petitioners; Shri A.M. Deshpande, the learned AGP for the respondent No.2; and Shri P.S. Patil, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

2. This petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 25-2-2013 passed by the School Tribunal, Amravati, allowing Appeal No.83 of 1997 filed by the respondent No.3-Mohd. Zaki Javed s/o Mohd. Ayyub challenging his termination from service with effect from 30-4-1997. The School Tribunal has set aside the order of termination dated 30-4-1997 and directed reinstatement of the respondent No.3 on the post of an Assistant Teacher with continuity in service. However, the prayer for back wages has been rejected. This petition is filed by the Management and the petitioner No.3, who was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in place of the respondent No.3.

3. The facts of the case are as under:

The petitioner-Management issued an advertisement in the local newspaper on 26-6-1996 inviting applications for the post of an Assistant Teacher. The respondent No.3 applied for the said post and after interview, he was selected by the competent Selection Committee for appointment to the post. Accordingly, by an order dated 30-6-1996, the respondent No.3 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher with effect from 1-7-1996 on temporary basis till the end of the academic session. This appointment of the respondent No.3 was approved by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Akola, by his order dated 23-11-1996, up to the end of the academic session with effect from 1-7-1996. At the end of the academic session, the petitioner was served with the order of termination dated 30-4-1997 stating the reason that his appointment was on purely temporary basis for a period of one session, which has come to an end on 30-4-1997. This was the subject-matter of challenge in Appeal No.83 of 1997 preferred by the respondent No.3 before the School Tribunal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (“MEPS Act”).

4. The School Tribunal has accepted the contention of the respondent No.3 that his appointment was made in the manner prescribed for filling in the permanent vacancy as per sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the MEPS Act and the respondent No.3 was duly qualified possessing the qualifications of B.Sc. (Biology) and B.Ed. There was no reason for the Management to appoint the respondent No.3 on temporary basis only for one academic session and the appointment should, therefore, be treated as one on probation for a period of two years in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the MEPS Act.

5. The School Tribunal rejected the contention of the Management that the respondent No.3 had no right to post, as he was appointed purely on temporary basis for a period of one session; at the end of which, his services were terminated by way of simpliciter order of termination, upon the period stipulated therein coming to an end.

6. The alternate plea raised by the Management that the services of the respondent No.3 were found to be unsatisfactory and hence his termination should be deemed to have been made in exercise of the power under subsection (3) of Section 5 of the MEPS Act, was rejected holding that there was total non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Rule 15 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (“MEPS Rules”) pertaining to communication of adverse remarks about unsatisfactory service and, therefore, the presumption, as contemplated under sub-rule (5) of Rule 15 that the work of the employee concerned was satisfactory during the period of probation, needs to be drawn.

7. Inviting my attention to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ramkrushna Chauhan v. Seth D.H. High School and others, reported in 2013(2) Mh.L.J. 713, Shri Jaiswal, the learned Senior Counsel, assi