JUDGMENT 1. RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is represented by learned counsel Shri P. N. Shende, respondent nos.1 to 3 are represented by learned counsel Shri Rugved Dhore and respondent no.4 - Deputy Director of Education is represented by learned Assistant Government Pleader Smt. M.A. Barabde. 3. By this writ petition, the petitioner is praying for setting aside the judgment dated 21.09.2019 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of School Tribunal, Chandrapur in Appeal No. STC/15/2016. He also prays for quashing and setting aside the order of termination of his services dated 19.10.2019 and seeking direction that respondent nos.1 to 3 be directed to reinstate him with full backwages from the date of his termination. Another prayer is that Appeal No. STC/15/2016 be remanded back with a direction to implead the petitioner as a party respondent to the appeal and decide the appeal afresh. 4. Respondent nos.1 and 2 runs Ramabai Ambedkar Vidyalaya and Junior College of Arts, Saoli, Dist. Chandrapur (respondent no.3). Respondent no.3 - College is admitted to the grants from the State Government. 5. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Junior Lecturer in respondent no.3- College by respondent no.2. The order of appointment is dated 26.06.2016 and it is placed on record at Annexure-II. In pursuance to the order of appointment, the petitioner joined the services. According to the petitioner, the approval was given by the respondent no.4 vide communication dated 03.08.2016 on a condition of presenting the Validity Certificate. Shri Shende, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of approval, respondent no.3 - College was not recipient of the grant-in-aid, however it is subsequently admitted to the grant. 6. According to Shri Shende, learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent no.5 was terminated from service as a Junior Lecturer of the respondent no.3 - College vide order dated 24.06.2016. She, therefore, preferred a statutory appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "the MEPS Act" for the sake of brevity) and set up challenge to her termination before the School Tribunal. The appeal was registered as Appeal No. STC/15/2016. Mr. Shende, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not a party to the said appeal. The appeal was registered as Appeal No. STC/15/2016. Mr. Shende, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not a party to the said appeal. The Tribunal vide its judgment dated 21.09.2019 allowed the appeal filed on behalf of respondent no.5 and directed the respondents therein to reinstate the appellant (respondent no.5 herein) to her former post. 7. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the consequence of allowing the appeal filed on behalf of respondent no.5 by the Tribunal was that respondent nos.1 to 3 terminated the services of the petitioner vide order of termination dated 19.10.2019. He submits that the services of the petitioner were terminated without giving an opportunity to the petitioner and therefore, he prays for the reliefs as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. 8. Mr. Rugved Dhore, learned counsel for the management submitted that in this writ petition the relief of reinstatement cannot be granted in favour of the petitioner inasmuch as it is his submission that the petitioner has not availed the remedy of filing statutory appeal before the Tribunal. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. Before the appointment order being issued to the petitioner, an advertisement was published by respondent nos.1 and 2 in the newspaper calling applications from eligible and interested candidates to get appointed on the post of Junior Lecturer in respondent no.3 college. The advertisement shows that the advertisement was published for three posts, out of which one post was reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate, one post was reserved for Nomadic Tribe (A) category candidate and one post was from Open category. The appointment order of the petitioner dated 26.06.2016 shows that it was given in pursuance to the application made by the petitioner on 28.03.2016, which clearly postulates that said application was made in pursuance to the advertisement, which was published in the newspaper on 19.03.2016. The appointment order shows that the petitioner was appointed on probation from 01.07.2016 to 30.06.2018. The appointment order of the petitioner does not show that the petitioner was appointed from Nomadic Tribe category, as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court. The approval order, which is placed on record by the petitioner, more particularly remark column (shera) in respect of the petitioner, recites as under : 10. The appointment order of the petitioner does not show that the petitioner was appointed from Nomadic Tribe category, as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court. The approval order, which is placed on record by the petitioner, more particularly remark column (shera) in respect of the petitioner, recites as under : 10. Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed statutory appeal challenging the termination dated 19.10.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any observation in the order of the Tribunal in Appeal No. STC/15/2016 that in order to reinstate the appellant (respondent no.5 herein), it was be necessary for the management to terminate the services of the petitioner. 11. Whether the petitioner was appointed from Nomadic Tribe category or to the post which was held by respondent no.5 prior to her termination, is a question to be decided. Since, remedy of appeal is provided by the MEPS Act, this Court is not observing anything on the said issue since it will cause prejudice to the petitioner if he chose to file statutory appeal before the School Tribunal. Therefore, the said point is left open for consideration of the Tribunal, if the petitioner files an appeal before the Tribunal challenging his termination vide order dated 19.10.2019. 12. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Shende submits that the petitioner will approach the School Tribunal for filing an appeal challenging the order of termination dated 19.10.2019 by respondent nos.1 and 2. In view of the said submission, this writ petition is disposed of in the following terms : (i) The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the School Tribunal challenging the order of termination dated 19.10.2019 within a period of 15 days from today. (ii) If the appeal is filed within a period of 15 days and if it is accompanied with the application for condonation of delay, it is expected from the learned Presiding Officer to pass the order considering the pendency of this writ petition before this Court by applying provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. (iii) The appeal, if presented by the petitioner, shall be decided by the Tribunal by giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties of the said appeal. (iii) The appeal, if presented by the petitioner, shall be decided by the Tribunal by giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties of the said appeal. (iv) The Tribunal shall also decide the issue as to whether the petitioner was appointed on a post reserved for Nomadic Tribe (A) category, as claimed by him. (v) On presentation of the appeal and after service to the respondents in the said appeal, it is expected from the School Tribunal to decide the said appeal within a period of One year from service. (vi) With this, the writ petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs.