1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1305/2009 (Kailashchand Bansilal Kasat VERSUS Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri V.M. Deshpande, counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.B. Ahirkar, A.G.P. for the R-1 & 4. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 16, 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order dated 05.07.2006 passed by the Presiding Officer School Tribunal, Amravati dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Presiding Officer School Tribunal, Amravati was perfectly justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging his oral termination dated 01.12.1996. The Tribunal rightly held that the appointment order was not signed by the competent authority as provided in schedule D 2 to the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The appointment order did not bear the signature of the Headmaster but, was singed by one Raghoji Khandare, who was also not the president of the society at the relevant time on 30.04.1994. Since the appointment order was not signed by a competent authority, the Tribunal rightly relied on a decision reported in 2002(4) Mh.L.J. 225 to hold that the petitioner could not have claimed any legal right on the basis of the said appointment order. It further appears on a perusal of the reply filed by the Education Officer that at the relevant time in the year 1994, the post of Assistant Teacher was not sanctioned and the Education Officer had not given permission to fill up the post. The services of the petitioner were not approved by the Education Department. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the enquiry ought to have been held against the petitioner under Rules 33 and 37 of the Rules of 1981 is not well founded and is liable to be rejected. The order passed by the Presiding Officer School Tribunal, Amravati does not suffer from a jurisdictional error so as to interfere with the same in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. 3 The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE