JUDGMENT : R.K. Deshpande, J. 1. The petitioner No.2 was employed on the post of Peon on 1-3-2006 in the vacancy caused due to death of one Shakeel Ahmad Nazmuddin on 20-2-2006. Prior to his employment, one post out of three posts of Peon was declared surplus by the Government Resolution dated 25-11-2005. In this background, the petitioners have filed the present petition challenging the rejection of approval to the employment of the petitioner No.2 by the Education Officer on 19-10-2006 on account of reduction in the number of vacancies from three to two posts of Peon. 2. Shri Akshay Naik, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has urged before us that in terms of subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (“the MEPS Act”), the Management had notified the name of Shakeel Ahmad Nazmuddin as Peon, which was accepted by the Deputy Director of Education by his communication dated 9-1-2006. The employment of the petitioner No.2 was in the vacancy caused due to death of Shakeel Ahmad Nazmuddin and, therefore, the petitioner No.2 was required to be protected and one of the other persons working on the post of Peon not notified, was required to be declared surplus. Ms Khan, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent-Education Officer, submits that the protection is to the persons notified under subsection (2) of Section 3 of the MEPS Act and not to the posts. 3. Subsection (2) of Section 3 of the MEPS Act being relevant, is reproduced below : “3. Application of Act. … (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), the Provisions of this Act shall not apply to the recruitment of the Head of a minority school and other persons (not exceeding three) who are employed in such school and whose names are notified by the Management to the Director or, as the case may be, the Deputy Director for this purpose.” 4. On reading the aforesaid provision as a whole, in our view, it is clear that the provisions of the Act do not apply to the recruitment of the Head of a minority school and other persons not exceeding three who are employed in such school and whose names are notified by the Management to the Deputy Director of Education for this purpose. The provision exempts the Management from complying with the provisions of the MEPS Act in respect of persons notified. The object is to protect the rights of minority institutions against the statutory protection available to the employees whose names are so notified. The stress is on the “persons notified” for employment on the post of Head and other three posts of the choice of the Management, and not on the posts. The protection cannot be sought in respect of persons or employees “not notified”. 5. No doubt, that the name of Shakeel Ahmad Nazmuddin, working as Peon, was notified, and in the vacancy caused due to his death on 20-2-2006, the petitioner No.2 was employed as Peon. In terms of the aforesaid provision, the Management could claim protection against Shakeel Ahmad Nazmuddin being declared as surplus, as his name was notified as Peon and it cannot be extended to the persons who are not notified. In the present case, prior to the employment of the petitioner No.2 on 1-3-2006, one of the three posts of Peon held by Shakeel Ahmad Nazmuddin, was abolished and, therefore, neither the employment in the vacancy caused due to his death could not be made, nor the name of the petitioner No.2 was notified for protection in service. 6. In view of above, the petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs.