The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of specific pleading and proof in claiming appointment against a reserved vacancy, and the legal implications of temporary appointments and their termination.

JUDGMENT

G.A. Sanap, J. - In this Letters Patent Appeal, challenge is to the Judgment and order dated 26/03/2012 passed in Writ Petition No.5279/2009, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the Judgment and order dated 29/09/2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal granting benefit of reinstatement and other consequential benefits to the appellant.

The facts leading to the filing of this Letters Patent Appeal are as follows :-

2. The respondent No.3 - School is managed by respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is the case of the appellant that she possessed B. A. B.Ed. qualification and belongs to OBC category. The selection process for filling up three vacancies of the Assistant Teachers in the respondent No.3 - School was conducted by the School Committee. The appellant was selected and appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a clear and permanent vacancy for period of two years vide appointment order dated 11/07/1998. The appellant performed her duties satisfactorily. The proposal for approval forwarded by the management was returned by the Education Officer. It is alleged that the Headmistress of respondent No.3 - School all of a sudden prevented the appellant from signing the muster roll and working in the school from 25/06/1999. It is the case of the appellant that this act on the part of Headmistress would tantamount to her termination. The appellant, therefore, challenged her termination from service before the School Tribunal.

3. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed written statement and opposed the claim. In sum and substance, the respondents denied the material facts pleaded by the appellant. According to the respondents, the appellant was appointed on a post reserved for VJNT category, though she does not belong to VJNT category. Her appointment was temporary for period of one year w.e.f. 15/07/1998 till the end of session. This fact was specifically mentioned in the appointment order. The proposal for approval to the appointment of the appellant was rejected by the Education Officer on the ground that there was backlog of Scheduled Tribe and Nomadic Tribe category candidates. There was no termination of service of the appellant inasmuch the appointment of the appellant came to an end by efflux of time. There was no violation of the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "MEPS Act") and the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "MEPS Rules").

4. The learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal accepted the claim of the appellant and granted the relief of reinstatement with other consequential benefits. In the writ petition filed by the respondents, the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal was set aside and the appeal filed by the appellant before the School Tribunal was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Being aggrieved by this Judgment and order, the appellant has come before this Court by filing this Letters Patent Appeal.

5. We have heard learned Advocates for the parties.

Perused the record and proceedings.

6. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the appellant is belonging to OBC category and therefore, her appointment against the vacancy reserved for VJNT category candidate was consistent with the provisions of Rule 9 Sub-rule (9)(a) of the MEPS Rules. Learned Advocate drawing our attention towards the appointment order submitted that the appointment order was for period of two years in a clear and permanent vacancy. In the submission of learned Advocate on completion of two years service in the absence of termination of service after one year of the appointment, the appellant could have attained the status of deemed confirmed employee of the respondents. Learned Advocate submitted that the service of the appellant was wrongly terminated without following th