JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner questions order dated 7th March 2013 below Exh.9/A in Appeal No.64/2012 passed by learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Solapur, whereby learned Presiding Officer was pleased to dismiss the appeal on preliminary point of jurisdiction 3. Facts, which are germane can briefly be stated thus: The petitioner had preferred appeal challenging the order dated 28.11.2012, whereby the petitioner was terminated from the post of Head Master by the respondent-school. The termination order was challenged on the ground of its legality. When the appeal came up before the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Solapur, reference was made to the ruling in Komal Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2011 (4) Mh.L.J. 301 , while preliminary issue was framed regarding jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the appeal. 4. The petitioner contended that the respondent-school is recognised within the meaning of Section 2(20) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act (hereinafter referred to as M.E.P.S.Act). It was specifically contended before the Tribunal that there was an admission on the part of respondent that the school run by Police Kalyan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal in the name and style as "Little Star Primary School, Osmanabad" is aided, controlled and supervised by Director of Education (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad, receiving 100% grant. The fact that the petitioner was terminated as per the provisions of M.E.P.S. Act was also not in dispute. Even under these circumstances, reliance is placed upon the ruling in Komal Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2011 (4) Mh.L.J. 301 (supra), as also reference is made to the provisions of Bombay Primary Education Act, so as to hold that the School Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that if such order is sustained, it would render the petitioner remediless and would result in irreparable injustice to him. My attention is invited to Section 1 of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947, which itself clarify that the provisions of the Bombay Primary Education Act are applicable to the extent of the Bombay area of the State of Maharashtra, that too excluding greater Bombay. My attention is invited to Section 1 of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947, which itself clarify that the provisions of the Bombay Primary Education Act are applicable to the extent of the Bombay area of the State of Maharashtra, that too excluding greater Bombay. Under these circumstances, it is contended that reliance placed upon the ruling in Komal Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) was absolutely misplaced and irrelevant. The Full Bench ruling of this Court had answered the reference to the effect that if a private primary school is recognised by a body or Officer referred to in Section 39 (2) of the Bombay Primary Education Act, it will not be governed by the provisions of M.E.P.S. Act and the employee working in such school cannot file an appeal under Section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, first of all the provisions of Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947 are not at all attracted, as the private school, which was recognised and receiving 100% government grant is situated in Osmanabad, Taluka and District Osmanabad and not in Bombay area so as to attract the provisions of Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947. Secondly, termination order referred to provisions of M.E.P.S. Act while terminating the services of the petitioner as Head Master of the School. Thirdly, there was no dispute that it was a recognised school, aided by the State government. 6. For all these reasons, the impugned order dated 7th March 2013 passed by learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Solapur, below Exh.9/A in Appeal No.64/2012 is unsustainable and the same is hereby quashed and set aside with direction that the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Solapur shall decide the Appeal No.64/2012 on its own merits, in accordance with law. 8. Rule is accordingly made absolute with no order as to costs.