JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Learned AGP waives service for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Learned Counsel appearing for contesting Respondent No. 3 waives service. In this matter, notice for final disposal was issued on 27th September, 2022 and according to the office note, Respondent No. 4 is also duly served. In that view of the matter, Rule is made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final disposal with consent.

2. This petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia seeking a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the Judgment and Order dated 25th February, 2020 passed by School Tribunal Mumbai, in Appeal No. 8 of 2019. By said Order, appeal filed by the Respondent No. 3 (‘Teacher’ for short) against the present Petitioners (‘Management’ for short) was allowed, thereby directing the Management to reinstate Teacher on the post of Assistant Teacher (part-time post) in Sociology with continuity in service and full back wages. The Management is further directed to also consider the Teacher for the full-time post, if eventually it so becomes available. Further direction is given to the Management to make all the necessary correspondences with Education Department for the compliance of the said Order. This Order is hereinafter referred as to “the impugned Order”.

3. The record shows that by Order dated 2nd February, 2022 of this Court, the Teacher was directed not to proceed with the execution of the impugned Order until further Orders, on condition that the Management deposits the entire back-wages from 30th January, 2018 till 28th February, 2022 in this Court within a stipulated time. The record further shows that the Management has complied with that Order and an amount of Rs. 13,69,339/- has been deposited in this Court. It is in these circumstances that the matter has been taken up for final hearing.

CASE OF THE PETITIONERS/MANAGEMENT

4. It is the case of the Petitioners that Petitioner No. 1 is a trust conducting several Educational Institutes, including Petitioner No. 2 Junior College, where the Respondent No. 3 was working on probation. The Petitioner No. 2 is a private recognized and aided secondary school. Following the selection procedure as prescribed, it issued an advertisement in local newspaper inviting applications for the post of lecturers for English, Sociology and Psychology. Respondent No. 3/Teacher applied pursuant to the said advertisement and was selected. On 4th August, 2014, an appointment Order was issued to Respondent No. 3 appointing her on probation for a period of 3 years on the post of Assistant Teacher probationer (Shikshan Sevak) for the subject of Sociology on a fulltime basis (hereinafter referred to as “the first appointment Order”). It is further submitted that in view of reduction of workload for the subject of Sociology, as per sanctioned staff schedule, the post held by Respondent No. 3 was converted to part-time and accordingly, a fresh appointment Order dated 10th August, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the second appointment Order”) was issued.

5. It is contended that from the date of second appointment Order to 27th January, 2016, Respondent No. 3 worked as part-time Teacher and thereafter she worked on clock-hour basis for different subjects. It is further contended that on 27th January, 2016, the services of the Respondent No. 3 were terminated and it is specific case of the Management that the said letter dated 27th January, 2016 is a termination letter. It is further contended that from 10th August, 2017 to 30th January, 2018, Respondent No. 3 was working on clock-hour basis. It is submitted that despite receiving termination letter, Respondent No. 3 volunteered to continue her services and also provided services on casual basis in the interregnum. It is contended that during such time, when Respondent No. 3 was working on either clock-hour basis or casual basis, she was not required to sign on muster or any other attendance record.

6. It i