As per case facts, Petitioners (School Management) challenged the School Tribunal's judgment which treated the respondent teachers' temporary appointments as probationary and set aside their discontinuance. The Management claimed the ... appointments were purely temporary for a limited duration, asserting that respondents had no legal right to continuation. The School Tribunal, however, found the appointments to be probationary, implying that their services could not be dispensed with without adhering to prescribed statutory procedures. The Management further relied on a Full Bench judgment stating that temporary appointments are permissible even against permanent vacancies under specific circumstances. The question arose whether an appointment made against a permanent vacancy, but explicitly stated as temporary in the appointment order, should automatically be deemed probationary, and what role the Management's recorded reasons play in such determinations under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act. Finally, the Court ruled that merely because a vacancy is permanent or an employee's performance is satisfactory, a temporary appointment does not automatically transform into a probationary one unless the appointment order explicitly states so or there is concrete evidence of camouflage or fraud by the Management. The burden of proof lies with the employee to demonstrate that the temporary label was a device to bypass statutory obligations. The Management can make temporary appointments against permanent vacancies as an interim measure, but must record bona fide reasons for doing so, and these reasons are subject to judicial scrutiny by the School Tribunal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act to prevent any colourable exercise of power. The School Tribunal committed an error by assuming a probationary status without sufficient material evidence beyond the explicit terms of the appointment order.