Temporary appointment against permanent vacancy is not deemed probation if the appointment order specifies temporary status.

The Respondents were appointed as Assistant Teachers by the Petitioner-Sanstha in 2005

Although no formal appointment orders were issued, the Respondents served until March 27, 2007, when the Management informed them that their services would be discontinued upon the conclusion of the academic year

The Respondents challenged this termination before the School Tribunal, Navi Mumbai, contending they were appointed against clear vacant posts on probation

The Petitioner-Management resisted the appeals, arguing the appointments were purely temporary and for a limited duration

On December 14, 2007, the School Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the appointments were on probation and the services could not be dispensed with without following statutory procedures

The Petitioners subsequently challenged the Tribunal's decision before the Bombay High Court

1. Whether an appointment made against a clear and permanent vacancy must be deemed to be on probation under Section 5(2) of the MEPS Act, even if the Management intended the appointment to be temporary

2. Whether factors such as departmental approval and certificates of satisfactory performance can automatically transform a temporary appointment into one on probation

The Court primarily interpreted Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act (MEPS Act) regarding the Management’s obligation to fill permanent vacancies

It relied heavily on the Full Bench judgment in Ramkrishna Chauhan v. Seth D.M. High School & Others (2013), which established that the Management retains the authority to make temporary appointments against permanent vacancies for limited durations, and that no legal presumption exists that every such appointment is on probation unless the appointment order specifically states so

The court also noted that the jurisdiction of the School Tribunal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act involves examining whether the Management’s exercise of discretion was bona fide or a "camouflage" to defeat statutory rights

The Court reasoned that the School Tribunal erred by assuming that the nature of the vacancy (permanent) automatically determined the status of the employee (probationary)

Following the Ramkrishna Chauhan precedent, the Court held that Section 5(2) of the MEPS Act does not create a fiction where every appointment against a permanent post is deemed to be on probation; the terms of the appointment order remain binding unless proven to be a fraud or camouflage

The Court observed that the burden of proof lies on the employee to demonstrate that the temporary label was illusory, which the Respondents failed to do

The Court clarified that Education Department approval is generally for grant-in-aid purposes and does not alter contractual stipulations, nor does a certificate of "satisfactory work" confer probationary status on a temporary employee

Since the Respondents could not produce material evidence showing an intent to appoint them on probation, the Tribunal could not "rewrite" the service conditions

The Court quashed and set aside the common Judgment and Order dated December 14, 2007, passed by the School Tribunal

Consequently, the appeals filed by the Respondents under Section 9 of the MEPS Act were dismissed

Rule was made absolute in favor of the Petitioners