An appointment against a reserved post without prescribed procedure confers no probationary status or deemed permanency.

Respondent No. 1 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher by the then management under an order dated 7 June 1997, which described the appointment as probationary for two academic years.

The Education Officer granted approval on 11 December 1997.

After a change in the managing body, the new management restricted his service to the 1997–98 academic year and did not permit him to work from June 1998.

Respondent No. 1’s appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 was allowed by the School Tribunal, which ordered reinstatement with full back wages.

The management challenged that order, contending that the appointment had been made without advertisement or interview and contrary to the reservation policy.

The Tribunal’s order had been stayed during the writ petition for approximately 24 years.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s order could stand when the appointment was alleged to have been made without following the prescribed recruitment procedure and contrary to reservation requirements.

2. Whether the appointment order’s description of Respondent No. 1 as a probationer entitled him to probationary protections or a claim to deemed permanency, despite the alleged absence of a clear vacancy and procedural compliance.

3. Whether, given the long pendency of the writ petition, the matter should be remanded to the Tribunal or decided on the record before the High Court.

Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 provides the statutory basis for an employee’s appeal to the School Tribunal; the judgment also refers to Section 5 and the Rules made under the Act as governing appointment procedure.

The Court applied the principles that a probationary appointment requires a clear vacancy and that recruitment must comply with applicable procedure, including advertisement and reservation requirements; the label “probation” in an appointment order does not, by itself, establish a right to probationary status or deemed permanency where those requirements are not met.

Relying on Janata Education Society v. Prakash Babarao Shingane, the Court noted that probation presupposes a clear vacancy, and, relying on Sanjay Gandhi Shikshan Prasarak Mandal v. Deputy Director of Education, it treated advertisement as a minimum requirement to ensure equal opportunity to eligible candidates.

The Court found no material showing that the appointment followed an advertisement-and-interview process.

It also considered the Education Authority’s affidavit stating that the appointment was made against a post reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate, without following the required procedure.

The approval’s unusually rapid issuance and blank reservation table further supported the management’s challenge to its reliability and to the Tribunal’s finding of a permanent vacancy.

Because the Tribunal had focused on the appointment order’s reference to probation without adequately addressing the pleaded challenge to the appointment’s legality, the Court held that its decision could not be sustained.

Given the writ petition’s long pendency, the Court declined to remand the matter and considered the Education Authority’s position on the record before it.

The writ petition was allowed, the Tribunal’s order dated 26 April 2001 was quashed and set aside, and Respondent No. 1’s appeal was dismissed.

Rule was made absolute, with no order as to costs.