-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6240 OF 2010 Nagnath Laxman Shinde. ..Petitioner. Versus The Commissioner, Handicap Welfare, Govt. of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. T. D. Deshmukh for the petitioner. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : April 25, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner. By the present petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 30th April 2010 passed by respondent no.1 whereby the petitioner has been repatriated to respondent no.7-School. 2. In the year 1995 the petitioner was appointed as teacher in respondent no.7 school. In the year 2007 this school was required to be closed down for technical reasons and the petitioner's services came to be terminated. The petitioner was thereafter absorbed in respondent no.6-School with effect from 26.5.2007. 3. In the meanwhile respondent no.7-school was restarted. Therefore respondent no.1 by the impugned order repatriated the petitioner to respondent no.7-school. The provisions of Rule 25A and 26 of Maharashtra Employees of Private School Rules, 1981 deal with termination of services on account of abolition of posts srp -: 2 :- and retrenchment on account of abolition of posts. Under Rule-26, the option is required to be given to the employee to join the original school or continue to remain in new school. Such option is not given under Rule-25A. Thus, the petitioner as a natter right cannot claim right to remain in employment of respondent no.6- school. 4. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in Pujya Sane Guruji Vidya Prasarak Mandal 2002(5) Mh.L.J. 149. He particularly relied upon the observations in paragraph no.26. I have gone through those observations. I find that these observations do not come to the rescue of the petitioner in contending that the petitioner must be given option either to remain in the present school or to be repatriated to the original school. In the absence of any specific provision in Rule-25A, no fault can be found with the order impugned. Hence, writ petition is dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)