IMPORTANT POINT
[The court established that in cases of termination based on caste claims, the burden of proof lies with the management to substantiate the grounds for dismissal, particularly in the context of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act, 1977.]

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Petitioner-Management has filed this petition challenging the judgment and order dtd. 17/2/2018 passed by the School Tribunal, Pune in Appeal No.08/2011. By that order, the Tribunal has set aside the termination order dtd. 10/1/2011 and has directed the Petitioner-Management to reinstate Respondent No.1 on his original post of Assistant Teacher alongwith backwages and consequential benefits.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Petitioner No.1 is a Trust which runs 15 secondary schools and one secondary (post basic) Ashram School. Petitioner No.2 is Secondary School and Petitioner No.3 is the post-basic Ashram School, both being managed by Petitioner No.1-Trust. The schools are governed by the provisions of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act, 1977 (Act of 1977) and Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules, 1981 (Rules of 1981).

3. During the year 1988-89, there were twelve vacancies of teachers in the schools managed by Petitioner No.1 in Pune and Ahmednagar Districts and as per the Roaster, there was backlog of reservation in Scheduled Tribe category. On 4/4/1988, Petitioner No.1 sent a requisition to the Managing Director of Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribal Development Corporation, Nashik stating that the Management intended to fill up 12 posts of teachers with various qualifications through S.T. category in June 1988. The Corporation was requested to send a list of eligible S.T. candidates. Similar communication was also addressed to various other authorities such as Tribal Development Department, Integrated Tribal Development Project etc. The Project Officer of Integrated Tribal Development Project, District-Ahmednagar stated that no candidates holding qualifications of B.Sc, B.Ed, B.A., B.Ed and M.Com, B.Ed. had registered their names with his office. He however sent names of S.T. candidates with qualifications of S.S.C., D.Ed.

4. The Management published advertisement on 9/4/1988 for filling up total 16 posts (2 SC, 12 ST and 2NT) with various qualifications. The advertisement specified that in the event of non-availability of requisite number of candidates in the reserved categories, candidates belonging to other categories will be considered for appointment. In response to the advertisement, Respondent No.1 submitted application on 21/4/1988 applying for the post of Teacher, specifying that he belongs to Munnerwarlu Scheduled Tribe. Upon being called for interview, Respondent No.1 filled up the application in prescribed format, in which again he stated that he belongs to Munnerwarlu ST community. After being selected, Respondent No.1 was issued the appointment order dtd. 15/6/1988 appointing him on the post of Assistant Teacher in Petitioner No.3-Ashram School. Clause-7 of the appointment order directed that the appointment would be subject to approval by Social Welfare Officer. On 1/7/1988, Petitioner-Management submitted proposal to Respondent No.3-Social Welfare Officer, Class I for grant of approval to the appointment of various appointees including Respondent No.1. In the information sent alongwith the proposal, in the Caste column, the word 'ST' was mentioned against the name of Respondent No.1. The proposal indicates that two more teachers, Shri. R.D. Dixit and Shri. S.B. Rahinj were also appointed along with Respondent No.1 against Open and OBC categories respectively. This show that the Management was apparently not able to receive applications from requisite number of eligible S.T. candidates and decided to make appointments through other categories.

5. Respondent No.3 issued order dtd. 20/12/1988 granting approval for the Academic year 1988-89 to appointment of various teachers including that of Respondent No.1. It appears that on 12/6/1989, fresh appointment order was issued in favour of Respondent No.1 w.e.f. 12/6/1989 and one more proposal dtd. 26/6/1989 was sent to the Social Welfare Officer for grant of approval once again specifying Respondent's caste as S