JUDGMENT - KHARCHE S.T., J.: - Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. C.A. No. 579 of 2004 is for appropriate directions/final disposal of the writ petition. This writ petition has already been admitted on 27-6-2001 and, therefore, today the matter is taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the order dated 29-4-1999 passed by the School Tribunal has been challenged in Appeal No. STN 245/1995 whereby the appeal preferred by respondent No. 4 was allowed and it was directed that she be reinstated on the post of physical training instructor (P.T.I.) along with arrears of emoluments. He contended that the School Tribunal while disposing of the appeal framed only one issue, i.e. "Whether the alleged oral termination order dated 23-7-1995 issued by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is legal and proper?" He contended that three issues are required to be framed while dealing with such matter and in support of this submission he relied on the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of (Anna Manikrao Pethe v. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati and Aurangabad Division)1, 1998(4) Bom.C.R. (N.B.)565. He further contended that the same view has been adopted by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 529 of 2002 which has been disposed of by the order dated 30-8-2002 with a direction of remanding the matter to the School Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law after framing three issues which are required to be framed. He further contended that there is only one sanctioned post of P.T.I. in the school and one Arun Bapuraoji Yenurkar has already been employed on that post and because of the filing of this petition he was likely to be affected by the order which could be passed in this petition and hence he had filed W.P. No. 410 of 2001, in which this Court by the order dated 27-6-2001 protected the service of respondent No. 5 i.e. Arun Bapuraoji Yenurkar who is a confirmed employee by giving specific direction that Arun Yenurkar shall not be removed from service on the basis of the order dated 29-4-1999 passed by the School Tribunal. He, therefore, contended that in such circumstances the matter deserves to be remitted to the School Tribunal for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law after framing the three issues. 3. Mr. Shende, learned Counsel, for respondent No. 4 contended that the School Tribunal by the order dated 29-4-1999 directed reinstatement of the respondent/employee on the original post with payment of arrears of emoluments for the period from 23-7-1995 till the date of reinstatement. He contended that the employee/respondent has been removed for no fault on his part and it is the management who has to provide employment to the respondent/employee, who is without job. He also contended that while admitting this petition, no interim relief was granted on 27-6-2001 and, therefore, there is no reason as to why the matter should be remitted to the School Tribunal for fresh decision. He, therefore, contended that the civil application filed by the petitioners needs to be rejected. 4. I have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the School Tribunal passed an order on 29-4-1999 directing reinstatement of respondent/employee with back wages from the date of termination of his services. It is also not disputed that Arun Bapurao Yenurkar had filed Writ Petition No. 410 of 2001, who is stated to be a confirmed employee on the post of P.T.I. His services have been protected by this Court vide order dated 27-6-2001 passed in that writ petition and the position that emerges is that there is only one sanctioned post of P.T.I. in the school. 5. In Anna Pethes case, 1997(3) Mh.L.J. 697 (cited supra), it has been held in para 15 that 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 Tribunal 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 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 appeal, it would be proper on the part of the Tribunal to frame such issue 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. 6. The aforesaid observations of the Division Bench have been followed by the Single Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 529 of 2002 which came to be decided on 30-8-2002 by which this Court remanded the matter back to the School Tribunal with a direction to decide the case afresh in accordance with law after framing the aforesaid three issues. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition and, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the School Tribunal has committed an error while disposing of the appeal wherein it has framed only one issue. 7. In the result, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate that the matter is decided afresh by the School Tribunal after framing the following three issues : (i) Whether the school was a recognised school as defined under the M.E.P.S. Act; (ii) 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 (iii) 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. In accordance with law and accordingly this matter is remitted to the School Tribunal with a direction to decide the matter afresh expeditiously and in any case not later than six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. Order accordingly. -----