1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition no. 1955 of 2011 Ku. Vandana Harishchandra Karhade Vs. Bhimjyoti Bahujan Hitay Magasvargiya Shikshan Sanstha and others. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A.Z. Jibhkate, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.S.P. Gadling, Adv. for respondent no. 1 & 2. Mrs. M.P. Munshi, Adv. for respondent no.3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 4 th October, 2011. Heard. The tribunal, by the impugned order dated 26.08.2010, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner was not made in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools ( Condition of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the Rules framed thereunder. The tribunal on an appreciation of the facts observed that the appointment of the petitioner was made by a back door entry as she happened to be the daughter of the President of the Society and the post was not advertised and the procedure for appointing the Primary Teacher was not followed before appointment of the petitioner. The tribunal further observed that the petitioner had not obtained her training qualification till September, 2009, and since the petitioner was neither trained nor the procedure for appointing her on the post of primary teacher was followed by the society, the appointment of the petitioner was surely not in accordance with the 2 provisions of Section 5 of the Act of 1977. There is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the tribunal on 26.08.2010. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that all the other appointments are made by the president in the similar manner and hence the tribunal was not justified in dismissing the appeal, is liable to be rejected firstly because this ground was not raised by the petitioner in the appeal memo filed before the tribunal and secondly the petitioner cannot claim that her appointment is valid merely because some other appointments are also made in the same fashion. The judgments reported in 2009(2) Mh.L.J. 522 and 2009 (5) Mh.L.J. 300 are inapplicable to the facts of this case. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan.