CHANDRASHEKHAR ANANDRAOJI REWATKAR Vs. NAVJEEVAN SHIKSHAN SANSTHA AND ORS
1. Leave granted.2. These appeals have been preferred against judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench on 4th September, 2014 and 7th October, 2015 in W.P.No.5455 of 2005 and Misc. Civil Application ST No.23162 of 2014 in W.P.No.5455 of 2005 respectively.3. The appellant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on probation on 6th July, 1999 by Sadhbhawna Bahu Uddeshya Shikshan Sanstha which was running the school in question at the relevant point of time. The management of the school was later on transferred to respondent no.1-Navejeevan Shikshan Santha some time in the year 2001 and thereafter on 23rd June, 2004 the services of the appellant were dispensed with orally. On 21st September, 2004, the appellant approached the School Tribunal under the provisions of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The Tribunal vide order dated 8th August, 2005 allowed the appeal and reinstated the appellant with continuity of services and backwages. The High Court set aside the said order, mentioned above, on the ground that the appellant could not produce the advertisement in pursuance of which he was appointed.4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length.5. It is undisputed that the appellant served for more than five years and the School Tribunal recorded a finding that the appointment of the appellant was after the prior permission of the Education Department and in pursuance of the selection after an advertisement. The said finding could not have been set aside without any basis, only on the ground that the appellant failed to produce the advertisement.
1[ds]5. It is undisputed that the appellant served for more than five years and the School Tribunal recorded a finding that the appointment of the appellant was after the prior permission of the Education Department and in pursuance of the selection after an advertisement. The said finding could not have been set aside without any basis, only on the ground that the appellant failed to produce the advertisement.
### Instruction:
First, predict whether the appeal in case proceeding will be accepted (1) or not (0), and then explain the decision by identifying crucial sentences from the document.

### Input:
1. Leave granted.2. These appeals have been preferred against judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench on 4th September, 2014 and 7th October, 2015 in W.P.No.5455 of 2005 and Misc. Civil Application ST No.23162 of 2014 in W.P.No.5455 of 2005 respectively.3. The appellant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on probation on 6th July, 1999 by Sadhbhawna Bahu Uddeshya Shikshan Sanstha which was running the school in question at the relevant point of time. The management of the school was later on transferred to respondent no.1-Navejeevan Shikshan Santha some time in the year 2001 and thereafter on 23rd June, 2004 the services of the appellant were dispensed with orally. On 21st September, 2004, the appellant approached the School Tribunal under the provisions of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The Tribunal vide order dated 8th August, 2005 allowed the appeal and reinstated the appellant with continuity of services and backwages. The High Court set aside the said order, mentioned above, on the ground that the appellant could not produce the advertisement in pursuance of which he was appointed.4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length.5. It is undisputed that the appellant served for more than five years and the School Tribunal recorded a finding that the appointment of the appellant was after the prior permission of the Education Department and in pursuance of the selection after an advertisement. The said finding could not have been set aside without any basis, only on the ground that the appellant failed to produce the advertisement.

### Response:
1

### Explanation:
5. It is undisputed that the appellant served for more than five years and the School Tribunal recorded a finding that the appointment of the appellant was after the prior permission of the Education Department and in pursuance of the selection after an advertisement. The said finding could not have been set aside without any basis, only on the ground that the appellant failed to produce the advertisement.
