1 WP 227.2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 227 OF 2010 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. S.M.Vibhute, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V.P.Latange, Advocate for Respondent. .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 13/07/2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The petitioner claims to be working as Balwadi Teacher. She was appointed on temporary basis in the year 1993 and thereafter was continued in service. In the year 1994, she was orally terminated. The petitioner challenged the said oral termination before the Labour Court. The Labour Court allowed the Complaint and reinstated the petitioner with continuity in service. The said Judgment is not challenged by the present respondents. 2 WP 227.2010 3. The petitioner thereafter filed Complaint (ULP) No. 27 of 2006 for regularization of her services as she was not being made permanent. The Industrial Court rejected the said Complaint. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. Mr. Vibhute, the learned counsel submits that the Industrial Court ought to have considered the appointment given to the petitioner from time to time and the fact that the Petitioner/complainant has continuously worked since the year 1993. The Petitioner was appointed as a Balwadi Teacher and has continued to work as such. The petitioner is entitled for the benefit of permanency as she had continuously worked. Her post is a clear vacant post and as such the services of the petitioner are required to be regularized. 5. Mr. Latange, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Industrial Court has considered all the facets of the case. The respondent being a statutory body, has to function with the prescribed procedure. The respondent does not have authority to grant permanency. The petitioner is appointed through back door and not as against any sanctioned post. As such, she can not be granted regularization. 3 WP 227.2010 6. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Judgment. 7. The Industrial Court has observed that the petitioner has admitted that her name was never recommended by the Collector and she has admitted that she was appointed on temporary basis on fixed amount in place of one Mrs. S.E.Chandre. There is no post vacant. In such circumstances, when there is no sanctioned post and the fact that the petitioner was not appointed by following procedure, no fault can be found with the order of the Industrial Court. As such, no case for interference is made out. The Writ Petition is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. 8. It is a fact that the petitioner is working since 1993. In such circumstances, if in future the posts are available for which the petitioner is eligible, then the case of the petitioner be considered in a preferential manner. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 227.2010