purely as a stop-gap arrangement her services came to be
extended till November, 2004 and again till 30-4-2005.
The same was challenged before the Tribunal and the
Tribunal holding the same to be contrary to law directed
appointment of the appellant as the in-charge
Headmistress. After the said order, the management
appointed one Mrs. Manmohan Sidhwas as Headmistress
from 1-1-2005. Undisputedly, the institution is a
minority institution and therefore the provisions of the
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of
Service) Regulation Act, 1977, do not apply to the
recruitment of head of a minority institution.
Undisputedly, the respondent-Trust is a minority
institution. The contention, however, is that, even for
the purpose of stop-gap arrangement, till and until
regularly selected candidate is appointed, the minority
institution could not have ignored the seniority of the
appellant while appointing the incumbent as a stop-gap
arrangement. The contention is devoid of substance.
There is no right in the appellant to be appointed as a
stop-gap arrangement. Besides, already a regular
incumbent has been appointed by the respondents.
Considering the same, the learned single Judge has set
aside the order of the School Tribunal which directed
the respondents to appoint the appellant as the
in-charge Headmistress. We do not find any illegality
committed by the learned single Judge in setting aside
