R.K. DESHPANDE, J.

1. The School Tribunal partly allowed the Appeal No. 67 of 1999 filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the M.E.P.S. Act and the said Rules), challenging his termination from service with effect from 03.07.1999. The School Tribunal has declared the termination to be illegal and void and it is set aside. The appellant is held entitled to compensation of the salary of six month including pay and allowances, if any, against loss of employment and the Management was directed to pay six months full salary at the rate prevailing on the date of decision of the appeal on the post of Physical Education Teacher within a period of 60 days.

2. The employee is before this Court and claims modification of the order passed by the School Tribunal, seeking reinstatement in service with full back-wages. None of the respondents have preferred any appeal challenging the decision given by the School Tribunal.

3. The undisputed factual position is that, in response to the advertisement dated 19.05.1998, the petitioner applied for one post of Physical Education Teacher and was interviewed on 03.05.1998 by the competent Selection Committee. Accordingly, he was appointed by an order dated 22.06.1998. The petitioner possessed the requisite qualification of B.A. B.P.Ed for appointment to the post of Physical Education Teacher. The Management did not forward the proposal for grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioner to the Education Officer for the reason that the School was on no grant basis. There is no dispute that the petitioner was continued in service upto 30.04.1999.

4. However, the case of the petitioner is that, he was continued in service thereafter also upto 03.07.1999, though the case of the Management was that the services of the petitioner automatically came to an end on 30.04.1999 i.e. upto the end of academic session 1998-99. There is no dispute that no written notice or order of termination was issued and the School Tribunal has accepted the case of the petitioner that he was continued in service upto 30.07.1999. The appeal was filed within a period of limitation of 30 days before the School Tribunal. There is no perversity in recording such findings which are based on evidence on record.

5. Before the School Tribunal, the petitioner produced photostat copy of the order of appointment dated 22.06.1998, indicating specifically that he was appointed on probation for a period of two years from 22.06.1998 to 21.06.2000 in the scale of Rs. 1400-2600. The order bears signature of the President/Secretary of the Society. The Management disputed the said order of appointment and produced another order of appointment of the same date, which indicates that the appointment of the petitioner was made from 22.06.1998 till the end of 1998-99 academic session, purely on temporary basis. It also contains a recital that at the end of this period, his services shall come to an end automatically.

6. The School Tribunal has relied upon sub-rule (5) of Rule 9 of the said Rules, which runs as under:-

“9. Appointment of staff.

(5) A letter of appointment order in the Form in Schedule "D" shall be issued to a candidate appointed to the post. A receipt in token of having receiving the appointment order shall be obtained from the candidate appointed.

The School Tribunal recorded the finding that in terms of aforesaid Rule, the order of appointment produced by the Management ought to contain the signature of the petitioner in token of having received the appointment order in terms of the aforesaid Rule. It recorded the finding that the order of appointment produced by the Management does not contain any such signature of the petitioner of having received the order of appointment. These findings are not challenged. It cannot, therefore, be presumed that it is the same order which was given to th