The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the prescribed procedure for appointments under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the inadmissibility of backdoor entries in appointments.

JUDGMENT

Nitin B. Suryawanshi, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. By this petition the management challenges judgment and order dated 04-02-2020 passed by the School Tribunal, Pune Region, Solapur in Appeal No.47/2016, thereby allowing the appeal filed by respondent No.1 teacher and setting aside the oral order of otherwise termination dated 30-09-2015 and directing the reinstatement of respondent No.1 teacher with full back wages and continuity in service along with all consequential benefits.

3. For the sake of convenience the parties hereinafter are referred as management and respondent No.1 teacher.

4. The management is running two schools, one is petitioner No.1 school at Sonari and second school is at Pad Pimpalgaon. The management after taking permission from respondent No.2 on 15-08-2013 published an advertisement (Exhibit-A) for appointment of Assistant Teachers for 5th to 7th Standard. In the said advertisement one post was shown reserved for ST category, one post was reserved for O.B.C. category and two posts were reserved for open category. Pursuant to the interviews three teachers, two from open category and one from O.B.C. category, were selected and appointed.

5. One post of S.T. category remained vacant. Respondent No.1 applied to the management on 22-08-2013 and was appointed for the probation period of two years on the post reserved for N.T.(C.) category, by appointment order dated 22-08-2013 (Exhibit-C).

6. Respondent No.1 teacher filed Appeal No.47/2016 before the School Tribunal challenging his oral termination dated 30-09-2015, contending that, pursuant to the advertisement published in the local newspaper and being duly qualified, he was duly selected and appointed on clear and vacant post reserved for N.T.(C.) category, to which he belongs, by the School Committee of the management. There was backlog of three posts of V.J.N.T. category. He has successfully completed the probation period on 30-09-2015. He was restrained by the headmaster from teaching and conducting classes and was asked not to come to the school from the next day. He, therefore, claimed that his services were orally terminated.

7. The management resisted the appeal by filing written statement. The tribunal allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.1 teacher. Hence, the present writ petition is filed by the management challenging the order of the tribunal.

8. Heard the learned advocate for petitioners management and the learned advocate for respondent No.1 teacher, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.2 State and the learned advocate for respondent No.3.

9. The learned advocate for management assailed the impugned order contending that respondent No.1 teacher was not appointed by following due procedure prescribed in Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. According to him, there was no clear permanent vacant post when respondent No.1 was appointed. On the request application made by respondent No.1, he came to be appointed. He, therefore, submitted that the tribunal has ignored this aspect and has not recorded any findings as to whether the appointment of respondent No.1 was after following prescribed procedure in the act and Rules. He further submitted that respondent No.1 has never applied for the post of Assistant Teacher pursuant to the advertisement dated 15-08-2013. According to him, the post reserved for S.T. category was advertised and the same was lying vacant. Even in the inspection report of the Education Department respondent No.1 teacher was never shown as an employee of the management. According to him, in absence of clear vacant post available, respondent No.1 could not have been appointed, that too without following due procedure of law. He further submitted that the tribunal has recorded perverse findings which are unsustainable. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned decision of the tri