1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner – management has challenged the impugned judgment dated 1.1.2015 delivered by the School Tribunal, Aurangabad, by which the Appeal No.3/2009 filed by respondent no.1 – employee has been allowed and she has been granted reinstatement with consequential benefits from the date of her oral termination, which is 23.12.2008.

3. After considering the strenuous submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective sides, I find that this case is a classic example of an unscrupulous employer exploiting a teacher employee, who has been working in the said school for more than five years.

4. The contention of Shri Godbole, learned Advocate for the petitioner – management, can be summarized as under:

a] Respondent no.1 – employee was allowed to work only to gain experience as a teacher.

b] She was inducted as an extra teacher only for the purpose of enabling her to gain experience.

c] There was no advertisement and no applications were called for.

d] She was not allowed to sign on the Muster Roll as she was an extra teacher.

e] Management is unaware whether her monthly wages are paid.

f] Since she was an extra teacher, her proposal for approval was not forwarded to the Education Department.

g] Though the letter of appointment dated 16.6.2003 was given to the employee, the said letter is insignificant as the said appointment order was issued only for enabling her to gather experience.

h] She was never treated as a beneficiary of the appointment order dated 16.6.2003.

i] The management expected this employee to gather experience and join some other school.

j] The employee desires to harass the management and, therefore, she filed her appeal.

k] Since she was an extra teacher, she was orally terminated from service.

l] Though the appointment order dated 16.6.2003 was issued in her name, it was only for an honorarium of Rs.3,000/.

m] Though the appointment order dated 16.6.2003 is not disputed, the same deserves to be discarded as according to the management, the employee had never worked.

n] There was no vacancy for accommodating the employee in the said school.

o] Though the qualifications of the employee are not disrupted, she had no right to employment.

p] Since she was an extra teacher, the management is not required to follow any procedure of termination laid down under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981.

q] Reliance is placed upon the judgment delivered by this Court in the matter of Deelip Uttamrao Bhosale v. Secretary, Mahatma Phule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Kingaon & others dated 10.3.2016 (Writ Petition No.2531/2011).

r] Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Anna Manikrao Pethe v. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati (1997 (3) Mh.L.J., 697).

s] Reliance is also placed on the judgment of this Court in the matter of President, Late Shri Ramchandra Patil Shikshan Sanstha, Kunikonur & others v. Haiderali Mahmadhanif Inamdar & another (2008 (4) Mh.L.J., 159).

t] Reliance is also placed on the judgment in Chandramani Devraj Tiwari v. The Secretary, SMR.R.B. Tiwari Sanskrutik Kendra & others (2007 (6) Mh.L.J., 667).

5. Shri S.S. Kulkarni alongwith Shri G.R. Ingole Patil, learned Advocates for the employee, submit as under:

a] The employee possessed the requisite qualification of S.S.C., D.Ed. and belongs to the Other Backward Class category.

b] She was appointed as a teacher on 16.6.2003 by the management indicating to her that the procedure of appointment was followed.

c] She believed in the appointment order dated 16.6.2003 and reported for duties.

d] She has been continuously working from the date of her appointment till her oral termination dated 23.12.2008, which is after a period of five and half years.

e] The employee had filed an application seekin