ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 07.09.2006 passed by the High Court of Bombay dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) filed by the appellants. 4. The LPA was filed against the order dated 19.07.2006 of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 605/2006 by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 5. In the writ petition, the Management has questioned the order dated 20.01.2006 passed by the Maharashtra School Tribunal in an appeal filed by respondent No.1. 6. The brief facts necessary for deciding the appeal are:- Respondent No.1 was appointed as a Lecturer by Order of Appointment dated 14.06.1999. The Appointment Order, which has been brought on record, indicates that the said appointment was for a period from 14.06.1999 to 29.04.2000. In subsequent years also, the appointment letter in the same nature was issued by the Management of the Institution. The last appointment letter which is brought on record is dated 13.06.2002 appointing respondent No.1 for a period w.e.f. 13.06.2002 to 30.04.2003. 7. It is a case of the Management that on 30.09.2002, respondent No.1 along with four other employees tendered joint resignation. Respondent No.1 and other employees had filed a complaint before the Deputy Director of Education that they were not being allowed to discharge their duties and the matter was taken in appeal under Section 9(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The Tribunal observed that the appointment of respondent No.1 was on probation against clear and vacant post. The Tribunal further observed that resignation dated 30.09.2002 is not acceptable consequently the Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the Management to reinstate respondent No.1 with backwages and continuity of service. The said order was challenged in the writ petition by the Management before the learned Single Judge of the High Court by which the writ petition was dismissed thereafter the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the very basis of the order of the Tribunal that respondent No.1 was on probation against clear and vacant post is fallacious. He, referring to the appointment order which has been brought on record, submitted that the appointment order clearly indicates that the appointment was purely temporary. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the very basis of the order of the Tribunal that respondent No.1 was on probation against clear and vacant post is fallacious. He, referring to the appointment order which has been brought on record, submitted that the appointment order clearly indicates that the appointment was purely temporary. He further submits that in view of the aforesaid, there was no question of directing back-wages. He further submits that it was a fact that respondent No.1 along with four other employees submitted their resignation on 30.09.2002 to harass the Management because examinations were to start on 23.10.2002. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that in fact the respondents were not available nor they appeared in the examination. It appears they are working somewhere else. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Tribunal has disbelieved the alleged resignation and directed for reinstatement with backwages and continuity of service. He further submits that respondent No.1 was to be treated as a permanent employee appointed on probation. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly conceded that respondent No.1 has taken job somewhere else. 10. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. A perusal of the Appointment Orders (brought on record as Annexures P-1 to P-3) indicate that the appointment was temporary, last appointment letter dated 13.06.2002 being for the period 13.06.2002 to 30.04.2003. The observation of the Tribunal that the appointment of respondent No.1 made on probation is without any basis. We, however, are not inclined to interfere with the finding recorded by the Tribunal that resignation was not submitted by respondent No.1 and other employees. We, thus, do not interfere with the said finding. However, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be modified to the extent that respondent No.1 shall be entitled for back-wages till 30.04.2003 which was the last date of appointment offered by the Management by letter dated 13.06.2002. 12. On having found that the appointment was not on probation, there is no question to reinstate with continuity of service. We, thus, modify the order of the Tribunal to the extent that the respondent shall be entitled for back-wages only till 30.04.2003. The judgment of the High Court and the Tribunal are modified accordingly. 13. The civil appeal is partly allowed accordingly.