(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant employee and upholding the order passed by the School Tribunal by which the appeal filed by the appellant employee was dismissed.
(2.) The appellant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the School administered by respondent no.1 Society, by the order dated 15th of July, 1994, on probation for the period of two years. According to the appellant, he continued in service till 7th of September, 1998 and his services were terminated orally w.e.f. 8th of September, 1998. The submission of the appellant is that he was appointed after following the prescribed procedure.
(3.) The appellant had filed Appeal No.136 of 1998 before the School Tribunal challenging the termination of his services. The Tribunal framed three issues as laid down by this Court in the case of Anna Manikrao Pethe ..vs.. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal Amravati and Aurangabad Division, 1997 3 MhLJ 697 and answered them as follows <p><table class = tablestyle width="900" border="1" align="center" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="font-family:Verdana"> <tr> <td> <div align="center"></div></td> <td><div align="center">Preliminary issues </div></td> <td><div align="center">Findings</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">1. </div></td> <td>Whether the school was recognized School as defined under the MEPS Act </td> <td><div align="center">Yes.</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">2. </div></td> <td>Whether the appointment of the Concerned teacher was made as per Section – 5 of the M.E.P.S.Act and the Rules thereunder </td> <td><div align="center">Yes.</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">3. </div></td> <td>Whether such an appointment has been approved by the Education Officer in pursuance of the provisions of the Act as well as the Government Resolutions issued from time to time regarding reservations, etc. </td> <td><div align="center">No.</div></td> </tr> </table>