The main legal point established in the judgment is that the initial appointment of the appellant on the post of Junior Clerk was illegal due to violation of the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981.

JUDGMENT

G.A. Sanap, J. - In this letters patent appeal challenge is to the order dated 26.7.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the writ petition rejecting the writ petition and maintaining the order dated 1.7.2005 passed by the learned Member of the School Tribunal, Amravati whereby the learned Member of the School Tribunal had dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant challenging the cancellation of his appointment as a Junior Clerk with the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows :

It is the case of the appellant that he was appointed as a Junior Clerk vide order dated 30th May, 1993 on probation for a period of two years with the respondent Nos.1 and 2. He joined his duty on 28.6.1993. It is the case of the appellant that vide communication dated 21st November, 1994 the respondent No.2 informed that in view of the orders dated 14th June, 1994 and 1 st October, 1994 issued by the Education Officer (respondent No.3) he was reverted to the post of Peon from the post of Junior Clerk. According to the appellant, his reversion from the post of Junior Clerk to the post of Peon would constitute reduction in rank. The appellant had challenged this order before the School Tribunal, Amravati.

3. The learned Member of the School Tribunal dismissed the appeal for the reasons recorded vide order dated 1st July, 2005. The appellant challenged the judgment and order passed by the School Tribunal by filing writ petition. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 26th July, 2010 rejected the writ petition and maintained the order passed by the learned Member of the School Tribunal, Amravati. The learned Single Judge held that initial appointment of the appellant on the post of Junior Clerk was not according to law inasmuch as he was appointed on the post which was reserved for candidate of Scheduled Caste category. The contention raised with regard to the reduction in the rank was rejected on the ground that subsequent appointment of the appellant on the post of Peon was a fresh appointment and as such does not constitute the reduction in rank.

4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge the appellant has filed this Letters Patent Appeal. The grounds of a challenge to the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge have been set out in the memo of appeal. The main ground is that the learned Single Judge has not properly considered and appreciated the material placed on record and came to a wrong conclusion.

5. We have heard learned Advocate for the appellant and learned Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. We have also heard Smt. S.S. Jachak, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No.3. Perused the record and proceedings.

6. Learned Advocate Shri A.J. Thakkar, for the appellant submitted that the appellant was appointed on the post of Junior Clerk by following the procedure. The learned Advocate submitted that the appellant was not appointed on the post of Peon and, therefore, his reversion from the post of Junior Clerk to the post of Peon was contrary to the provisions of law inasmuch as it would constitute reduction in rank. The learned Advocate further submitted that the respondent No.3 did not specifically deny the approval to the appointment of the appellant. The learned Advocate further submitted that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in order to accommodate the respondent No.4, who happens to be a close relative of the President, Shri S.A. Narkhede, respondent No.1 the appointment of the appellant was cancelled on the basis of the communication received from respondent No.3. The learned Advocate submitted that when the appointment of the respondent No.4 was continued against the said post, the appellant could have been continued on the post of Clerk. The learned Advocate submitted that the respondent No.3 vide communication dated 1st October, 1994 had called upon the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to make compliance of certain queries