1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6454 OF 2008 Smt.Suvarna Laxman Sawant @ Suvarna F/o.Rajaram Sawant. ...Petitioner. Vs. The Chairman, Shriram Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr. R.V. Bansode for the Petitioner. Mr. M.S. Topkar for Respondent No.1. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. October 10, 2008. P.C. The appointment of the Petitioner from 12th June 1999 was on a temporary basis for the Academic Year 1999-2000. The management in its Written Statement has stated that the Petitioner was appointed between 1st August 2000 and 31st October 2000 and 15th October 2003 and 14th January 2004 in leave vacancies. The School Tribunal while dismissing the appeal filed by the Petitioner against the termination of her services held that the Petitioner was not appointed in pursuance of regular process of selection and the 2 appointment was temporary for a period of one year. Hence, it was held that the Petitioner had no claim for reinstatement. 2. Learned Counsel, while assailing the reasoning of the Tribunal, urged that though the initial appointment was on a temporary basis, the management forwarded a proposal to the Education Officer, seeking approval to the appointment of the Petitioner on probation. Reliance is placed on a photo copy of a communication purported to have been addressed to the Education Officer in that regard. On the other hand, Counsel appearing on behalf of the management drew the attention of the Court to the statement recorded in paragraph 14 of the judgment of the Tribunal, in which it has been noted that the Education Officer in his Written Statement had submitted that he had not received any proposal for the appointment of the Petitioner. 3. When this petition came up for admission, the Petitioner was directed to place on the record, a copy of the advertisement, pursuant to which the Petitioner had been called for interview to the 3 post of Assistant Teacher. Though the direction was issued on 14th September 2008 and the petition was thereafter adjourned to 25th September 2008, no such advertisement is forthcoming. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner fairly stated that no advertisement was issued in the newspapers. According to the Petitioner, a notice was published on the Notice Board. The School Tribunal was in these circumstances, justified in coming to the conclusion that the appointment of the Petitioner was not in the regular process of selection. The only letter produced on record, was a letter dated 2nd June 1999 by which the Petitioner was appointed purely on a temporary basis in the Academic Year 1999-2000. The Petitioner urged before this Court that a proposal was sent to the Education Officer for the approval of the appointment of the Petitioner on a probationary basis. As already noted earlier, the School Tribunal has observed in paragraph 14 of the judgment that the Education Officer has stated in his Written Statement that he had not, as a matter of fact, received a proposal for the appointment of the Petitioner, at any point of time, for his approval. That apart, the photo copy of an alleged communication of the management which is 4 produced during the course of the hearing of these proceedings is undated and does not bear either an Inward number or any receipt of the Education Officer. 4. In these circumstances, the Tribunal cannot be faulted for having dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appointment of the Petitioner was not in pursuance of a regular process of selection and in any event that it was only temporary in nature. No case for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. The Petition shall accordingly stand dismissed. ....