wp1011.08 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1011 OF 2008 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1018 OF 2008 _________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Court's or Judge's Orders Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Coram : Smt. Nishita Mhatre & orders or | Shri M.T. Joshi, JJ. directions and | Date : 7th June, 2011 Registrar's orders | _________________________________________________________________________________ Shri N.N. Shinde, Advocate for petitioners Shri K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri B.P. Patil holding for Shri Hemant Survey, Advocate for respondent no.3. Shri R.T. Nagargoje, Advocate for respondent no.4. ..... 1. These petitions have been filed by two employees contending that the respondents have not approved their appointment and hence they have not been paid salary. According to the petitioners, they applied for appointment as assistant teachers, pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 1995, 1996 and 1997. According to the petitioners, they were appointed in the year 2004. 2. An affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Education Officer in September, 2008, indicating that approval was not granted because the petitioners had been appointed without following the provisions of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act. The affidavit indicates that in the year 2005, the School was informed that the petitioners could not be granted approval since the proposals sent by the School were defective. No steps wp1011.08 were taken by the School to correct the proposals. Furthermore, an inspection was conducted by the Education Officer pursuant to the orders of this Court. The inspection report which is annexed to the affidavit dated 29th March, 2011 indicates that the petitioners in both these petitions were not working in the School when the inspection was carried out on 21.04.2010. 3. In our opinion, no case has been made out by the petitioners for exercising our writ jurisdiction. We have found that they were appointed without issuing an advertisement and in breach of the provisions of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act. In our opinion, the advertisements issued in the year 1995, 1996 and 1997 can not relate to the appointments made in 2004. No other advertisement has been shown to us relatable to the appointments made in 2004. In these circumstances, the Petitions are dismissed. 4. In view of the dismissal of the Writ Petitions itself, the Civil Applications are also dismissed. ( M. T. JOSHI, J. ) (NISHITA MHATRE, J) ga s/wp1011.08