(1.) The petitioners challenge the order of the School Tribunal by which respondent No.1 has been granted reinstatement to his original post as Assistant Teacher together with backwages. The Tribunal has held that the termination order dated 30.6.1995 was void ab initio.
(2.) Respondent No.2 was initially appointed in the school run by the first petitioner of which the second petitioner was the Headmistress from 13.6.1993. His appointment order dated 8.6.1993 specified that Respondent No.1's appointment was for a temporary period from 14.6.1993 to 30.4.1994. Clause 7 of the appointment order indicates that Respondent No.2 who was a candidate belonging to the general category was taken in service against the vacancy for a Scheduled Caste candidate since there was a backlog for that period.
(3.) Aggrieved by this decision of the petitioners, the teacher approached the school Tribunal by filing an appeal under the MEPS Act. The School Tribunal has held that the petitioners had wrongfully terminated the services of the teacher without holding an enquiry against the teacher. The Tribunal held that the teacher had completed two years probation in the school and, therefore, was deemed to be permanent. The Tribunal took into consideration the service rendered by the teacher from 14.6.1993 upto the date on which his services were terminated and, therefore, held that he had been wrongfully terminated.