1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.3892 OF 2008 (BHAIYYA PRABHAKAR MESHRAM.. ..Vs.. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTH.) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : D.D.SINHA & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 26, 2009. 1. Heard Shri J.M.Shamkuwar, learned counsel for petitioner and Mrs. K.S. Joshi, learned A.G.P. for respondents. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher vide order dated 25.06.1995 for the period of two years and continued to hold the said post, even then the respondent stayed order of approval dated 06.01.1996 and refused to grant approval on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner was on the post held by Smt. Geeta Udapure. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that since the petitioner is in the employment of respondent, since the date of 2 his appointment, the Education Officer, without considering this aspect, stayed the earlier approval and failed to grant further approval, therefore, this petition. 3. Mrs. Joshi, learned A.G.P., has submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was made because of vacancy occurred due to termination order issued by the management, whereby services of Smt. Geeta Udapure came to be terminated. It is submitted that the said lady filed Original Application before the Tribunal, which was allowed by the Tribunal, order of termination was set aside and direction was given to reinstate her. It is contended that since this fact was not brought to the notice of the Education Officer by the management approval was granted vide order dated 06.01.1996. However, when the Education Officer came to know about these facts the said approval was stayed and further approval was not granted. The Education Officer vide communications dated 12.05.2005, 14.02.2006 and 02.09.2006 communicated to the management that the approval cannot be granted to the post held by the petitioner since the appointment 3 of the petitioner was 'stop-gap arrangement' and since the School Tribunal has allowed the appeal of Smt. Geeta Udapure question of grant of approval does not arise. 4. Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. In the instant case, appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher was made by the management in the vacancy occurred due to termination of Smt. Geeta Udapure. The appointment was temporary and in the form of stop gap arrangement. It is not in dispute that the appeal filed by Smt. Geeta was allowed by the School Tribunal. 5. In the circumstances, no case is made out for showing indulgence. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE RR.