Judgment : ORAL JUDGMENT. 1) This writ petition challenges the judgment and order dated 7.8.2007 passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal No.STC-287/1996. The petitioner had filed the said appeal, challenging his oral termination from service as Head Master of the School w.e.f.24.6.1996. The only ground on which the appeal has been dismissed is, that the petitioner was not qualified for being appointed as Head Master of the School as he did not possess five years teaching experience, as contemplated by Rule 3 (1) (b) of the MEPS, (Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools) Rules. 2) The case of the petitioner was that he was qualified for being appointed as Head Master and in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 (1) of the MEPS Act, he was appointed as Head Master on probation for a period of two years, by an order dated 30.8.1995. The petitioner joined the services on 1.9.1995. However, he was not allowed to perform the duties w.e.f.24.6.1996. Hence, he had preferred an appeal before the School Tribunal, challenging the termination. 3) The case of petitioner was that he was appointed on probation for a period of two years and his services could not have been terminated except on the ground of unsatisfactory service. According to the petitioner, this was not a ground of termination, put forth by the respondent management. The management in response to the memo of appeal took the stand, that the petitioner had voluntarily resigned from the post of Head Master on 1.7.1996 and hence, the question of management terminating the services of the petitioner, did not arise. 4) The Tribunal recorded the finding that the appointment of the petitioner was on probation for a period of two years as Head Master. The contention of the management that the petitioner voluntarily resigned from service w.e.f.1.7.1996, was not accepted. The Tribunal however, held that the petitioner did not possess five years experience as contemplated by Rule 3(1) (b) of the MEPS, Rules and hence, was not eligible for being appointed as Head Master. The appeal has been accordingly dismissed. 5) The management has not challenged the finding recorded by the School Tribunal rejecting the decision of the management, that the petitioner had voluntarily tendered his resignation on 1.7.1996. The appeal has been accordingly dismissed. 5) The management has not challenged the finding recorded by the School Tribunal rejecting the decision of the management, that the petitioner had voluntarily tendered his resignation on 1.7.1996. It was not the stand of the management in response to the memo of appeal, that the petitioner did not possess the requisite experience as contemplated by Rule 3 (1) (b) of the MEPS, Rules. It was also not the stand of the management, that the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground, that he did not possess the requisite experience. In view of this, the Tribunal had no occasion to record the finding on the question as to whether the petitioner possessed the requisite experience or not. This was not the contentious issue before the Tribunal. Hence, the dismissal of the appeal by the School Tribunal on this sole ground, cannot be sustained. 6) Apart from above, the petitioner has produced on record the experience certificate dated 15.4.1991 showing, that he possessed the teaching experience for a period from 7.7.1987 to 4.5.1991. He has also placed on record the order of appointment as an Assistant Teacher for a period commencing from 27.7.1992 till the end of the Academic Session 1992-93. Thereafter also, the petitioner was appointed on 1.7.1993 to 30.4.1994, by an order dated 19.6.1993, placed on record. In view of this, it cannot be said that the petitioner did not possess the requisite experience as contemplated by Rule 3 (1) (b) of the MEPS, Rules. If it is the case of the management that the petitioner had fraudulently obtained this certificate to show that he possessed the requisite experience of five years, then it was open for the management to conduct an enquiry in respect thereof and to take appropriate action, if the charges are proved against him. However, this course has not adopted by the management. The termination is not on the ground, that the petitioner obtained the employment, by producing fraudulent experience certificate. 7) In view of above, it has to be held that the petitioner was eligible for being appointed as Head Master. He was appointed on probation for a period of two years. His services were not terminated on the ground that his service on probation was not found to be satisfactory. 7) In view of above, it has to be held that the petitioner was eligible for being appointed as Head Master. He was appointed on probation for a period of two years. His services were not terminated on the ground that his service on probation was not found to be satisfactory. The management has failed to prove that petitioner voluntarily resigned from the post of Head Master. Hence, the termination of petitioner is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is to be reinstated in service on the post of Head Master. 8) As far as the question of payment of backwages is concerned, since the appeal was dismissed, there was no occasion for the School Tribunal to go into the said question of backwages. The question of backwages is required to be decided on the basis of pleadings and evidence and hence, it is for this purpose only, the matter will have to be sent back to the School Tribunal for making enquiry and passing appropriate order in accordance with law. 9) For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is partly allowed. The Judgment and Order dated 7.8.2007 passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal No.STC-287/1996 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appeal by the petitioner is allowed. The termination of the petitioner w.e.f.24.6.1996 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent management is directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Head Master w.e.f. 24.6.1996, within a period of thirty days from today. The matter is remanded back to the School Tribunal for deciding the question of payment of backwages, after giving an opportunity to all the parties to amend the pleadings and lead evidence in support of it. The School Tribunal shall not reopen the issue of reinstatement 10) Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.