FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1864 OF 2009 ___________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|___________________________________ This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 23rd July, 2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Latur in Appeal No.200 of 2006. 2 The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has rendered about 5 years service in respondent school and the School Tribunal has not taken into consideration this fact and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. He further invited my attention to the grounds raised in the writ petition and submitted that the respondent management appointed the petitioner by order dated 30th November, 1989 w.e.f. December, 1989 on payment of salary of Rs.450/- per month and the petitioner has worked for about 5 years. The learned Counsel further submitted that though respondents 1 and 2 had forwarded the proposal of the petitioner to the Education Officer for approval, the Education Officer has not considered the same and without any basis directed the respondents 1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner on daily wages, which is contrary to the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules framed thereunder. He also invited my attention to the grounds in the petition and submitted that the petitioner has worked for 5 years as peon and, therefore, it is desirable that his claim should be accepted. 3 Though the respondents are served, none appears for them. 4 With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the School Tribunal. The tribunal in paragraph 10 of the judgment has recorded the finding that the petitioner who is original appellant failed to prove that he is duly selected and appointed on clear permanent vacancy. There was no advertisement for the appointment of peon. Even the post of peon was not sanctioned by the Education Officer to the school in question. The appointment order was not issued by the Secretary or the school committee. In such circumstances, the appointment of the petitioner / appellant cannot be said to be the appointment under Section 5 of the M.E.P.S. Act. Hence, the petitioner – appellant cannot claim protection of deemed permanency. 5 After careful perusal of the findings of the School Tribunal and in view of the admitted position that no appointment order was issued to the petitioner, it is not possible for this Court to grant any substantial relief to the petitioner. The School Tribunal has taken possible view and no interference is called for under extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6 Hence, writ petition is dismissed. However, considering five years’ length of service rendered by the petitioner in the respondent school, it is desirable that in case vacancy is available in the respondent school, the petitioner may be given preferential treatment in appointment as permissible under the Rules. (S.S. SHINDE, J). 24.09.2009. PLK/#