JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent management, thereby terminating his services w.e.f. 24.07.2016, without following due procedure of law and the said order of termination being upheld by the School Tribunal, Nashik, on an appeal being instituted by him under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short “the MEPS Act”).

2. Heard the learned counsel Shri Subodh Shah, for the petitioner, the learned Senior Counsel Shri V.D.Hon, instructed by Shri P.D.Bachate for respondent Nos.1 to 3/ Management and the learned counsel Shri R.S.Pawar for respondent No.4/ Education Officer (Primary).

3. By an order dated 02.01.2020, the petition was directed to be listed for final disposal at the stage of admission and accordingly, it was circulated. Since the respective counsel advanced their submissions towards final hearing, I deem it fit to issue RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of the parties.

4. The respondent No.1 is a society and trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act and runs the Respondent No.3 primary school, which is named and styled as, “Hazi Leookman Urdu Primary School”, Vitabhatti, Deopur, District Dhule. The Respondent No.2 is the President of the said Trust and the Respondent No.3 is the Principal of the school. The Trust is conferred with the linguistic and religious minority status.

5. The petitioner claims that he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Hazi Leookman Urdu Primary School w.e.f. 11.01.2013 and his appointment being on probation of two years. Though the order of appointment is not placed on record, the pleading in the petition is to effect that the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Dhule, conferred it’s approval, to the appointment of the petitioner in pay scale of Rs.5200- 20200+2800 Grade pay i.e. pay scale applicable to the Assistant Teacher, and the approval was granted for the period commencing from 11.01.2013 to 10.01.2015 on “No Grant” basis. The approval is conferred vide order dated 12.02.2013, on the proposal being forwarded by the Management, along with necessary documents pertaining to his education qualification as well as his order of appointment. It is the claim of the petitioner that he was appointed against open category.

6. It is pleaded in petition that on successful completion of the period of probation, the Management forwarded his proposal for continuation, to the Education Officer and the petitioner plead that, on completion of two years, he is deemed to be confirmed and has attained the status of permanent Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 27.04.2016.

Despite this, in his deemed confirmation, the services of the petitioner were terminating by order 27.04.2016, on the basis of the resolution passed by the Managing Committee on 10.04.2016. The termination order projected the appointment of the petitioner as an assistant teacher on temporary basis, on no grant (now partially grant basis) and the basis of termination is the complaints received against the petitioner about his functioning, which resulted into various notices and memos being issued to him and these accusations being admitted by the petitioner, is one of the ground for termination. Another ground, which is projected in the termination order is that the petitioner along with another assistant teacher in the school remained absent from 25.01.2016 and from reliable sources, as per the school Management, both of them were absconding and even the school received complaints to that effect. It is alleged that when an explanation is sought about said conduct, the reply given is that on account of marriage being performed, he remained absent, but till date two are not married. This conduct of the petitioner is alleged to have affected the reputation of the school and the parents have complained to the school to that effect and since this conduct of the petitioner was detrimental to