The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of documentary evidence and the management's decision in drawing reasonable judicial inferences regarding the appointment procedure and the employee's status.

JUDGMENT

G.A. Sanap, J. - In this Letters Patent Appeal, challenge is to the Judgment and order dated 20/12/2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.4862/2008, whereby the learned Single Judge set aside the Judgment and order dated 18/08/2008 passed by the Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal, Amravati. The School Tribunal, Amravati had rejected the appeal filed by the respondent No.2 for setting aside his termination and for his reinstatement.

The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows :-

2. The respondent No.2 was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the school by the appellant - management vide order dated 01/07/2000 for one academic session namely; 2000-2001 to teach the students of 11th Standard in the newly opened Junior College of the respondent No.1. On 14/06/2001 for the next academic session 2001-2002, the fresh appointment order was issued for one year. On 20/06/2002, third appointment order appointing the petitioner for academic session 2002-2003 was issued. The petitioner acquired B.Ed. qualification in the year 2005. It is the case of the respondent No.2 that thereafter, the management of the appellant No.1 vide resolution dated 18/06/2005 resolved to appoint the respondent No.2 on probation for a period of two years. Pursuant to the resolution dated 18/06/2005 by an order dated 20/06/2005, the respondent No.2 was appointed on probation for period of two years in a clear vacancy. The respondent No.2 at the relevant time possessed the qualification of M.A. (Political Science with B.Ed.). The respondent No.2 worked on the said post. It is the case of the respondent No.2 that the management of the appellant No.1 prevented him from signing the muster roll w.e.f. 07/10/2007. According to the respondent No.2 on successful completion of probationary period, he attained the status of deemed employee of the respondent No.1. The respondent No.2, therefore, preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "MEPS Act").

3. It is the case of the respondent No.2 that he was appointed on probation for a period of two years w.e.f. 20/06/2005. The management of the appellant No.1 without assigning any reason or without issuing order of termination did not allow the respondent No.2 to sign the muster roll w.e.f. 07/10/2007. The grievance of the respondent No.2 is that on completion of period of probation successfully, he had acquired the status of deemed confirmed employee and therefore, his services could not have been terminated without following the procedure prescribed under the MEPS Act and the Rules.

4. The appellants filed their reply in the appeal filed by the respondent No.2 before the School Tribunal. In sum and substance, the appellants denied the contention of the respondent No.2. According to the appellants, the resolution produced on record dated 18/06/2005 was not signed by any of the members of the management committee. It was a bogus document. It is the further case of the appellants that the respondent No.2 was not appointed by following due procedure prescribed under the MEPS Act. There was no post available for continuing the petitioner in service. There was no sufficient workload in the college. Against the workload of 18 hours, only 8 hours workload for a week was available. The appointment of the respondent No.2 according to the appellants was on clock hour basis. The post on which the respondent no.2 was appointed was not permanent and sanctioned post having full workload. The appellants, therefore, could not have appointed respondent No.2 as Junior College Lecturer on permanent basis to do the work on clock hour basis.

5. As stated above, the learned Single Judge did not agree with the finding of fact recorded by the learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal. The learned Single Judge by setting aside the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer