Judgment : Oral Judgment: By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur (Chandrapur) on 3.5.2001 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner under the provisions of section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act 1977. 2. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Presiding Officer at Nagpur stating therein that he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 1.7.1988. The petitioner had passed his S.S.C., D. Ed. Examination and it is his case that he was continued in service till 18.8.1993. He was appointed on a clear and vacant post and he had completed his probation period successfully. It was further his case that he was a deemed confirmed employee and the management could not have terminated his services orally. It was the case of the petitioner that his services were protected under the provisions of section 5(3) of the M.E.P.S. Act 1977. 3. The management filed the reply and denied the case of the petitioner. It was the case of the management that the petitioner was appointed temporarily on year to year basis as the post on which the petitioner was appointed was reserved for a Scheduled Tribe candidate. Since no Scheduled Tribe candidate was available, the petitioner who did not belong to any of the reserved categories, was required to be appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher. Since the petitioner was temporarily appointed on year to year basis, it was the case of the respondents that the petitioner could not have claimed to be a deemed confirmed employee. The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur on appreciation of the material on record by the impugned judgment dated 3.5.2001 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has impugned the judgment by filing the present writ petition. 4. Shri P.N.Shende, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the School Tribunal was not justified in holding that the petitioner was not a deemed confirmed employee as he was appointed on year to year basis in the year 1988. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed since 1988 and having completed two years in service, he was a deemed confirmed employee. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the petitioner was appointed on a post earmarked for the S.T. Category candidate. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed since 1988 and having completed two years in service, he was a deemed confirmed employee. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the petitioner was appointed on a post earmarked for the S.T. Category candidate. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the provisions of rule 9(9) of the Rules of 1981. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the services of the petitioner were terminated by a written order dated 29.3.1993 w.e.f. 30.4.1993, when the petitioner had clearly disputed his signature on the said order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal was further not justified in holding that the appeal was barred by limitation as the petitioner had not received the order dated 29.3.1993 and his services were orally terminated on 18.8.1993. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision reported in 2004(3) Mh.L.J. Page 1078. 5. Shri Jibhkate, the learned counsel for the management, supported the judgment passed by the School Tribunal on 3.5.2001 and submitted that the findings recorded by the School Tribunal are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record and the findings could not be interfered with, in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction. 6. According to the learned counsel for the management there was documentary evidence on record to show that the petitioner was appointed on a post earmarked for the S.T. Category candidate. The learned counsel for the management submitted that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the petitioner could not have claimed deemed permanency on the post of Assistant Teacher as he was appointed temporarily on year to year basis on the post earmarked for the Scheduled Tribe Candidate. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Tribunal considered the various communications issued by the management to the petitioner to show that his services were not satisfactory. 7. Shri Ahirkar, the learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3 supported the judgment passed b the School Tribunal on 3.5.2001 and submitted that this court may not interfere with the pure findings of facts recorded by the school Tribunal in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The learned AGP sought for the dismissal of the appeal. 7. Shri Ahirkar, the learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3 supported the judgment passed b the School Tribunal on 3.5.2001 and submitted that this court may not interfere with the pure findings of facts recorded by the school Tribunal in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The learned AGP sought for the dismissal of the appeal. 8. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have perused the impugned judgment. It is necessary to note that though the petitioner had claimed that his services were orally terminated on 18.8.1993, the Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence on record held that the services of the petitioner were terminated by a written termination order dated 29.3.1993 w.e.f. 30.4.1993. For the reasons recorded in writing the Tribunal held that the appeal was barred by limitation as the management had proved the termination order dated 29.3.1993. 9. The Tribunal was justified in rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits as there was evidence on record to show that the petitioner was appointed on a post earmarked for the S.T. Category candidate. The approval letter issued by the Education Officer, clearly showed that there was a backlog in the S.T.Category. Similarly, the document no.7 which was produced before the Tribunal clearly showed that the Secretary of the Society had issued a communication to the petitioner on 25.6.1991 that his appointment was against S.T. Category candidate. Document no.8 was also produced on record which was in the nature of resolution which stated that in the place of the petitioner one F.C. Sonkusre, who belonged to Scheduled Tribe Category, was duly appointed. Evidence on record, therefore, clearly showed that the post on which the petitioner was appointed was earmarked for the S.T. Category candidate and hence the petitioner was appointed on year to year basis, during the session 1991-92 and 1992-93. The Tribunal held and rightly so that in the aforesaid background, it could not be said that the petitioner was a deemed confirmed employee under the provisions of the Act of 1977. The Tribunal held that the appeal of the petitioner was liable to be dismissed as his appointment was against a reserved category post and he was intimated by the management that his appointment was on year to year basis and on a post earmarked for S.T. Category candidate. The Tribunal held that the appeal of the petitioner was liable to be dismissed as his appointment was against a reserved category post and he was intimated by the management that his appointment was on year to year basis and on a post earmarked for S.T. Category candidate. The findings recorded by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal are just proper and call for no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 10. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.