1 aswp-982-986-11 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 982 OF 2011 Chandrakant Kuber Chavan .. Petitioner Vs. The President Metaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 986 OF 2011 Raju Shivaji Dubal .. Petitioner Vs. The President Metaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and ors. .. Respondents Mr. G.S. Hegde for petitioners. Ms. S.S. Bhende, AGP for respondent nos.3 and 4. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE AND SMT. NISHITA MHATRE,JJ. DATE : August 29, 2011 P.C. 1. We have heard Mr. Hegde, the learned counsel for the 2 aswp-982-986-11 petitioners. We called upon the learned counsel for the petitioners to show an appointment order issued to the petitioners as Assistant Teacher in any school run by the respondent no.1 – society and that they were appointed by following the due process of law. 2. Mr. Hegde submitted that none of the petitioners have been issued an appointment order in writing and they have been appointed by oral orders and have been working as Assistant Teachers for the last more than 10 years and without any payment of salary. He also claimed that at no point of time the petitioners’ appointment was approved by the Education Officer. 3. If the petitioners have not been appointed by issuing an appointment order as prescribed under the MEPS Act and the Rules thereunder and they have not undergone the due selection process, we find no reason to show our indulgence to call upon the Education Officer for granting approval and in such a situation the petitioners’ remedy for recovery of salary may be by way of a civil suit. If the petitioners’ alleged entry in the school is not in keeping with the due process of law and they preferred to keep mum for more than ten years, their claim need not be 3 aswp-982-986-11 entertained to issue a writ of mandamus. 4. Hence, the petitions are rejected. (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)