JUDGMENT - B.H. MARLAPALLE,J.:-The petitioner, on passing his B.A. Examination, Came to be appointed for the first time as an Assistant Teacher on purely temporary b for a period from 1-7-1986 to 30-4-1987 vide appointment order dated 30-6-1987 issued by respondent No. 3, who is the Head Master of Daduji Pethe Vidyalaya, by respondent No. 2, Education Society. At the end of academic year 1966-87, he discontinued and a fresh appointment order dated 30-6-1987 was issued to him again on purely temporary basis for the period from 1-7-1987 to 30-4-1988, i.e. for academic year 1987-88. The services of the petitioner was again discontinued fror 5-1988 at the end of the academic year and for the next academic year 1988-89 was issued a-fresh appointment order dated 30-6-1988 on a purely temporary bi for the period from 1-7-1988 to 30-4-1989. The petitioner was not a trained teac and he was appointed purely on temporary basis against a permanent vacancy. tenporary appointments as mentioned hereinabove, were duly approved by Education Officer and he was not appointed for the academic year 1989-90 and did not raise any grievance in that respect against respondents No. 2 3. 2.It appears that the petitioner passed his Bachelor of Physical Education Deg (One Year Degree Course) in the summer of 1990 and Statement of marks issuec the Arnravati University declaring the petitioner having passed the said Bacheto Physical Education Examination in second class has been brought on record. ' petitioner contends that he was relieved by the authorities of the Physical Educa College on 18-4-1990 and he went to respondent No. 3 School to report for duty 19-4-1990. As he was not allowed to report for duty, the petitioner alleged i termination of service and filed Appeal No. 42/90-A under section 9 of the Mahara tra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, bel the School Tribunal at Aurangabad alongwithan application for stay. The lean Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal by his order dated 23-4-1990 granted ex parte stay to the alleged oral termination and the stay order was confirmed subsequently 3-11991. The lean Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal by his order dated 23-4-1990 granted ex parte stay to the alleged oral termination and the stay order was confirmed subsequently 3-11991. It is further contended that as respondents No. 2 3 did not implement ex parte interim order dated 23-4-1990 passed by the School Tribunal, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition No. 139 of 1990 before this Court and the said Contempt petition came to be disposed of by order dated 24-9-1991 in view of the fact that petitioner was allowed to join the duty by respondents No. 2 and 3 on 21-9-19. Thereafter, it appears that on hearing both the parties, i.e. the petitioner and School Management, the learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal, Amravati and Aurangabad Division, Amravati was pleased to dismiss the Appeal No. 42 of 1990. A filed by the present petitioner and the interim orders dated 23-4-1990 and 3-9-1991 were vacated by order and judgement dated 25-8-1992. The petitioner has assailed the said judgment and order dated 25-8-1992, rejecting his appeal. 3.Few additional facts which are not disputed between the parties and which are gathered from the record and proceedings called from the School Tribunal also need to be mentioned. For the academic year 1989-90, the respondents tfo. 2 3, Management and Head Master respectively were called upon by the Education Officer to fill in the post of Assistant Teacher by appointing a trained graduate teacher by following due procedure. The Management accordingly released an advertisement in daily Hindusthan Newspaper in May 1989 and in response to the said advertisement, 29 candidates had applied including the present respondent No. 4. Interviews were conducted on 8-6-1989 and the present respondent No. 4, who is a trained graduate, came to be appointed as Assistant Teacher, Physical Training Instructor (P.T.I.) against the said permanent vacancy on probation for a period of two years by appointment order dated 21-6-1989. Respondent No. 4 joined on 20-7-1989 and he was to complete the probation period on 19-7-1991. The said appointment on probation was duly approved by respondent No. 5 Education Officer and accordingly respondent No. 4 was continued in service by respondent Nos. 2 3 and he was allowed to complete the probation period also. Respondent No. 4 joined on 20-7-1989 and he was to complete the probation period on 19-7-1991. The said appointment on probation was duly approved by respondent No. 5 Education Officer and accordingly respondent No. 4 was continued in service by respondent Nos. 2 3 and he was allowed to complete the probation period also. However, all of a sudden, by order dated 19-9-1991, issued by respondent No. 3, the service of respondent No. 4 came to be terminated with effect from 20-9-1991 solely on the ground that the School Tribunal, Aurangabad granted stay infavour of the present petitioner. Respondent No. 4, aggrieved by the said termination order dated 19-9-1991, approached the School Tribunal and filed Appeal No. 215/91 A under section 9 of the Maharashtr? Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as M.E.P.S. Act for short). 4.The present petitioner was impleaded as respondent No. 5 in the said Appeal No. 215 Of 1991 A and he had filed his written statement opposing the present appeal filed by respondent No. 4 contending, inter aha, that respondent No. 4 was appointed as a stop-gap-appointment while the petitioner was sent on deputation to complete his B.P.Ed, degree and that in view of section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, Appeal No. 215 of 1991 A was required to be stayed. 5.The present respondents No. 2 and 3 also have filed their written statement in Appeal No. 215/1991A and while accepting the factual position as brought out in the said appeal by the appellant, the appointment of the present respondent No. 4 in pursuance of the directions given by respondent No. 5 and procedure followed for such appointment, was contended to be unlegal and proper and that respondent No. 4 has acquired a permanent status as an Assistant Teacher when the termination order dated 19-9-1991 was served on him and the said termination was issued solely for the reasons that the School Tribunal had confirmed theexparte stay order on 3-9-1991 and the present petitioner had initiated contempt proceedings before this Court that is Contempt Petition No. 139 of 1990 against the Management. Respondents No. 2 3 have further submitted before the School Tribunal that the present respondent No. 4 could not have been removed but for the orders passed by the School Tribunal and the filing of Contempt Petition and that both the appeals, namely, Appeal No. 42/1990 A and Appeal No 215/1991A were required to be disposed of together. The learned Presiding Officer of the College Tribunal by a judgment and order dated 25-8-1992 has allowed the Appeal No. 215/91 A and has directed respondents No. 2 3 to reinstate respondent No. 4 in the post of Physical Training Instructor (P.T.I) with continuity of service and backwages within 40days.This order has been implemented, by respondent Nos. 2 3 and in pursuance of the judgment and order passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal No. 42/1990A, the present petitioner came to be discontinued from service and the respondent No. 4 has been reinstated. The petitioner has challenged both the orders, namely, order in Appeal No. 42/1990Aand order in Appeal No. 215/91A passed by the School Tribunal on 25-8-1992. 6.The orders passed by the School Tribunal have been challenged mainly on two grounds, viz., that the Management had made a commitment by issuing the certificate dated 21-2-1989 that on completion of his B.P.Ed. degree, the petitioner would be reinstated and hence the Management was estopped from appointing any other teacher in the vacancy available when the petitioner was studying for his Bachelor of Education course; and that the findings of the Collage Tribunal that the petitioner was not qualified for appointment as Assistant Teacher as he possessed B.A. B.P. Ed. qualifications and he could not be called as a trained teacher. 7.The appointments of permanent teachers in the private schools are governed by section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, which reads as under: "5. qualifications and he could not be called as a trained teacher. 7.The appointments of permanent teachers in the private schools are governed by section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, which reads as under: "5. Certain obligations of Management of Private Schools- (1) The Management shall, as soon as possible, fill in the manner prescribed, every permanent vacancy in a private school by appointment of a person duly qualified to fill such vacancy: Provided that, unless such vacancy is to be filed in by promotion, 1 Management shaR, before proceeding to flM in cudi vacancy, may be, \ Education Officer, ZHa Parishad, whether OM- ii xny suitable pen available on the list of surplus pereons mahMnad by him for absorpC in other schools: and in the event of such ipamn baing aMailaHa, \ Management shall appoint that person in mfih "BBancy. (2) Every person appointed to fiH a permanent vaoaq hrl be on probaf for a period of two years. Subject to the pfomi'"im of sub-sections and (4), he shall on completion of this probaftn pMM of two years, deemed to have been confirmed. (3) If in the opinion of the Management, the walk or behaviour of i probationer, during the period of his probaten, " not satisfactory, Managerriti..: ;my terminate his services at any ftna during the sad per after giving him one months' notice, or salary of one month in lieu of notice. (4) if the services of any probationer are term~natted under sub-sect (3) and he is reappointed by the ManagenaMt in the same Soh or any other school belonging to it within pariod of one year fri ' the date on which his services were ter-nakd" then the period probation undergone by him previonaly aftMf ba taken ii consideration in calculating the requtiwl papM of probation the purposes of sub-section (2). i(4-A) Nothing in sub-sections (2), (3) or (4) shaM rlPPS to a parson appoln to fill a permanent vacancy by promotion or by aliawpiion as provi( under theproviso to sub-section (1) (5) The Management may fiN in every tempomy wancy by appointin; person duly qualified to fiH such vacancy. i(4-A) Nothing in sub-sections (2), (3) or (4) shaM rlPPS to a parson appoln to fill a permanent vacancy by promotion or by aliawpiion as provi( under theproviso to sub-section (1) (5) The Management may fiN in every tempomy wancy by appointin; person duly qualified to fiH such vacancy. Tha aid- of appointment si be drawn up 'm the form prescribed in that bd-I and shaU state period of appointment of such person." 8.Coming to the chatenge to the impugned ordeis on fta ftao gnunds as mentioned hereinabove, in support of second challenge regarding the petitioner bang a trained teacher), the petitioner has relied upon the Government Resoluinn dated 6-6-1983 issued by the Government of Maharashtra wherein 'it has been stipulated fiat the one year course of Physical Education conducted by the H.V.P. Mandafs Degree Cotege of Physical Education at Amiavati affiliated to the Nagpur University has been approved to be a quafification for bained giaduate teachers. In addition, the petitioner has refied upon Clause 2(1)(i) of Schedule B to the Maharashtra Employees of Private School ( Conditions of Service) Rides, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as M.E.P.S. Rules, for short). As per the said provisions, it is noticed that even a graduate with degree in Physical Education from Arnravati University is eligible to be treated as a trained graduate for appointment as Assistant Teacher in Secondary Schools and Junior Colleges of Education, it is, therefore, held that the petitioner was qualified for being considered as a trained graduate for appointment as teacher for the first time in April/May 1990, that is, on his acquiring the Bachelor of Education Degree, However, this alone does not come to the help of the petitioner for allowing the present petition. 9. The second ground of challenge is based on the certificate dated 21-2-1989 allegedly issued by respondent No. 3 to the petitioner. The said certificate states that "the petitioner has been working for the last five years, he was being sent through the college for admission in your college. On acquiring the higher qualifications, the School will have no restrictions on the petitioner and on completion of the said qualifications, he would be reappointed.' The School Tribunal has held that the said assurance of the Management cannot be held to be legal even if it is accepted that respondents No. 2 3 had issued the said certificate and that respondent Nos. 2 3 did not have a statutory obligation to continue the said employee after filling up the vacancy by following due procedure and after obtaining approval to such appointment by the Education Officer, that is, respondent No. 5. We are of the view, on perusal of the said certificate dated 21-2-1989, that the certificate is not reliable and it cannot be held to be creating any vested right in favour of the petitioner to continue 'v\ sexwoe or seek fresh service with respondents No. 2 and 3 and that the said certificate in any way did not bind respondents No. 2 and 3 to continue the petitioner in service. First of all, the certificate is not addressed to anyone and hence it content to say that "he is being deputed for admission in your college ', is meaningless. Secondly, the certificate says that the petitioner has been working for the last five years whereas for the first time. the petitioner came to be appointed by order dated 30-6-1986 on a temporary basis and by the time the said certificate was issued, the petitioner had worked purely on temporary basis during three academic years with respondents No. 2 and 3. In addition, the certificate states that respondents No. 2 and 3 will have no restrictions or binding on the petitioner and immediately the next sentence states that petitioner will be reappointed in service. 10. There is one more very vital factor which also requires to be considered to hold that the certificate dated 21-2-1989 is totally unreliable and that the petitioner inspite of having been deputed for acquiring the B.Ed. qualifications by respondent No. 2, he failed to do so till the summer of 1989, that 'is, till his last tenure which expired on 30-4-1989. The petitioner has brought on record at Annexure No. V, an application form addressed to the Government College of Education, Yavatmal, which is affiliated to the Arnravati University for admission of the petitioner to the B.Ed. Course during the academic year 1987-89 and the said application form has been duly recommended by respondent No. 3 on 10-3-1987. The said application has been filled 'in by the petitioner and it is clearly stated that the petitioner has joined for the first time on 1-7-1986. Respondent No. 2 has given a declaration that the petitioner was being sponsored for the admission to the B.Ed. The said application has been filled 'in by the petitioner and it is clearly stated that the petitioner has joined for the first time on 1-7-1986. Respondent No. 2 has given a declaration that the petitioner was being sponsored for the admission to the B.Ed. Course and he will be given leave required during the said period and further that during the course of studies for B.Ed. as well as for two years thereafter, he will be continued in the post of Assistant Teacher. It is an admitted position that the petitioner did not acquire the B.Ed. qualifications inspite of his case being recommended and /or sponsored by respodents No. 2 3. The reliance of the petitioner to claim relief of reinstatement reappointment with respondents No. 2 and 3 is, therefore, without any merits. 11. It is also material to note that the petitioner for the first time seems to have sought admission in the B.P.Ed. Course (One Year Degree Course) only in academic year 1989-90 and he was not in the employment of respondents No. 2 and 3 from 1-5-1989 onwards. Respondents No. 2 and 3 published an advertisement to fill- in the post on permanent basis which the petitioner occupied on temporary basis and admittedly, the petitioner has not taken any objection when the said advertisement was issued. If the petitioner was convinced that respondents No. 2 and 3 have given him a written assurance to continue him in service or reappoint him in service on completion of his B.P.Ed. Course, nothing prevented the petitioner from submitting a representation to respondents No. 2 and 3 and register his protest or claim on the said post which was being filled-in by respondents No. 2 3 at the directions of respondent No. 5, by issuing a public advertisement. This behaviour of the petitioner also goes to prove that there was no such assurance or commitment given by respondents No. 2 and 3 as contended by the petitioner on the basis of the certificate dated 21-2-1989. 12. in the case of (U.P. Shiksha Education Board v. Pajender Prasad Gupte)1, J.T. 1996(3) S.C. 378 similar situation had arisen wherein an untrained teacher was appointed and he was given an opportunity to undergo training which he did not avail and ultimately his service was terminated without any notice. 12. in the case of (U.P. Shiksha Education Board v. Pajender Prasad Gupte)1, J.T. 1996(3) S.C. 378 similar situation had arisen wherein an untrained teacher was appointed and he was given an opportunity to undergo training which he did not avail and ultimately his service was terminated without any notice. The Supreme Court in J.T. 1996(3) S.C. 378 held that the order of termination without notice cannot be said to illegal specially when the petitioner was an untrained teacher and he did not undergo required training as prescribed by the Government for appointment as trained teacher inspite of the fact that he was provided with an opportunity by the Management . In the instant case also, the petitioner was admittedly provided with an opportunity to join the B.Ed. Course for the academic session 1987-89 and he did not acquire the B.Ed. degree till April 1989, that is, till his discontinuation on 30-4-198. 13. In another case, viz., (Hindustan Education Society v. Sk. Kaleem Sk. Gula Nabi)2, (1997)5 S.C.C. 152 , Respondent No. 1 was appointed against a clear vacancy on 10-6-1992 with the stipulation: "Your appointment is purely temporary for a period of 11 months from 11-6-1992 to 10-5-1993 in the clear vacancy. After expiry of the above peric your service shall stand terminated without any notice." The High Court had held that the said teacher was regularly appointed and had directed his regularisation in service. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the directions of the'High Court by relying upon section 5 of the M.E.P.S. Act and observed as under: "In view of the above and the order of appointment, the appointment of the respondent was purely temporary for a limited period. Obviously, the approval given by the competent authority was for that temporary appointment. As regards permanent appointments, they are regulated by sub-section (1) and (2) of section 5 of the Act according to which the Management shall, as soon as possible, fill up, in the manner prescribed, every permanent vacancy in a private school by appointment of a person duly qualified to fill in such vacancy. Every person so appointed shall be put on probation for a period of two years subject to the provisions of sub-sections (4) and (5). He shall, on completion of the probation period of two years, be confirmed. Every person so appointed shall be put on probation for a period of two years subject to the provisions of sub-sections (4) and (5). He shall, on completion of the probation period of two years, be confirmed. Under these circumstances, the appointment of the respondent cannot be considered to be permanent appointment......." 14. It is thus clear that the Supreme Court has held that the temporary appointees are not entitled to claim permanent status and unless such permanent vacancies are filled in as per section 5 of the M.E.P.S. Act, the temporary appointees cannot have any grievance. The facts in the case of Hindustan Education Society (supra) are similar to the present case inasmuch as the petitioner was an untrained teacher and during the relevant three years, he was appointed on purely temporary basis during each academic year. His case is, therefore, governed by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Hindustan Education Society (supra). In addition, it is also clear from the records that there was no termination order issued against the petitioner at any time by respondents No. 2 3 and his grievance of oral termination with effect from 19-4-1990 is without any basis. The Tribunal has rightly relied upon the first proviso to Rule 6(2) of the M.E.P.S. Rules and the impugned judgment does not suffer from any errors apparent on the face o~the record. 15. While disposing of this petition, we deem it appropriate to observe that when such applications under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, are filed before the School Tribunals by the teachers challenging any act of termination on the part of the Management , it will be necessary for the Tribunal to frame and decide three preliminary issues, viz., whether the School was a recognised school as defined under the M.E.P.S. Act; whether the appointment of the concerned teacher was made as per section 5 of the M.E.P.S. Act and the Rules thereunder: and whether such an appointment has been approved by the Education Officer in pursuance of the provisions of the Act as well as the Rules framed thereunder including the Government Resolutions issued from time to time regarding reservations etc. These preliminary points are required to be framed and decided before the appeal proceeds on merits and even if such points are not raised by any of the parties to the appeat, it would be proper on the part of the Tribunal to frame such issues suo motu before examining the merits of the case. In case the findings to any of the preliminary issues are in the negative, the appeal must fail then and there itself, so far as the relief of reinstatement/continuation in service is concerned. 16. In the result, the Writ Petition is rejected and the rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. Rule discharged.