Both these petitions take an exception to the judgment and order dated 8.7.2008 passed in Appeal No.25/1998 by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati and they are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The facts giving rise to the petitions may be stated in brief as under :

WRIT PETITION NO.3364 OF 2008

(i) Petitioner was appointed on 2.7.1993 on the post of Peon with respondent no.3. Approval to the appointment of petitioner was granted on 12.12.1995. As the post of Laboratory Attendant was vacant, respondent no.1 was appointed on the said post from 1.10.1996. The contention of petitioner is that the post of Laboratory Attendant was filled in without any advertisement, interviews and without following the procedure prescribed under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 with Rules, 1981. (hereinafter referred to as “MEPS Act & Rules”)

(ii) Petitioner made representation to the management and requested for his appointment to the post of Laboratory Attendant. On 24.8.1997, petitioner was promoted to the post of Laboratory Attendant. Education Officer granted approval to the said post on 27.12.1997.

(iii) Respondent no.1 filed an appeal before the School Tribunal and the School Tribunal, vide order dated 8.7.2008, allowed the appeal filed by respondent no.1 and declared that otherwise termination of respondent no.1 from the post of Laboratory Attendant was illegal and void. Management was directed to reinstate respondent no.1 with continuity in service and back-wages. Petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of School Tribunal, has preferred present petition.

3. Heard Shri Jibhkate, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Kothale, learned counsel for respondent no.1, Smt. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3 and Shri Dubey, AGP for respondent no.4.

WRIT PETITION NO.4434 OF 2008

4. This petition is by the management. According to management and school authority, appointment of respondent no.1 was not in accordance with Section 5 of the MEPS Act and Rule 9 of MEPS Rules. As an appointment was not in accordance with the law and rules, submission is that respondent no.1 is not entitled to the protection of his services. The grievance is that the appointment which was not in accordance with the law has been protected by the impugned judgment and order of the School Tribunal.

5. Respondent no.1 has seriously resisted both the petitions and filed affidavit-in-reply. It is submitted that respondent no.1 was appointed on the post of Laboratory Attendant and continued on the same post but management and school authority in collusion with petitioners filed complaint on the basis of manipulated documents. The submission is that considering the collusive stand of management, school and the petitioner, School Tribunal had rightly allowed the appeal and no interference is warranted in writ jurisdiction.

6. Heard Smt. Deshpande, learned counsel for petitioners, Shri Raut, learned counsel for respondent no.1, Shri Dubey, learned AGP for respondent no.2 and Shri Jibhkate, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

7. According to learned counsel for petitioners burden of establishing that appointment was made on a clear and permanent post by following the procedure laid down under the Act and Rules was not on the management but on respondent no.1. It is submitted that respondent no.1 has failed to establish that he was appointed on the post of Laboratory Attendant by following the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules and, therefore, he was not entitled to protection. The learned counsel pressed into service the decision of this court in case of Rayat Shikshan Sanstha and another .vs. Yeshwant Dattatraya Shinde [2009 (6) Mh.L.J.476] laying down the proposition that burden of establishing that appointment was made on a clear and permanent post by following procedure laid down under the Act and Rules is on the employee and not on the management. So far as entry in