-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.1556 OF 2009 Sou. Sumati Sudhi Katiparambil : Petitioner V/s. The Secretary, Rayat Shikshan Sanstha, Satara & Ors. : Respondents .. Mr.R.J.Dhond for the petitioner. Mr.M.V.Deshmukh for respondent no.1. Mr.A.I.Patel, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent no.3. .. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : MARCH 31, 2009. P.C. 1. The petitioner has challenged the judgement of the School Tribunal dismissing her appeal under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. 2. The petitioner was apparently appointed from 8.6.1988 to 9.6.1996. She challenged her termination on the ground that she was appointed as a probationer and having completed the period of two years, her services have not been illegally terminated. The Tribunal found that there were such breaks in her service that she has not rendered -: 2 :- continuous service of more than two years and, in fact, she has not been appointed on probation at any point of time. Moreover, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not demonstrated that there was a clear permanent vacancy and that the said vacancy was notified by the respondents to the Employment Exchange of the district and to the Social Welfare Officer as also to the Associations or Organisations of persons belonging to Backward Classes as provided by rule 9(8) read with section 5(1) of the M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981 and the M.E.P.S. Act, 1977. Accordingly, the Tribunal has held, in view of the law laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors. (2006 II CLR 261) and in Chanchal Goyal (Dr.)(Mrs.) v. State of Rajasthan (2003 II CLR 949), that the entry of the petitioner in employment was not, in accordance with law, and long service of such nature does not confer any right to permanent appointment. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate from the appointment order how the services of the petitioner can be said to have been on probation and how it could be said that the petitioner was properly appointed in accordance with the procedure established by law. In this view of the matter, the petitioner’s case must be taken to be squarely covered by the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in Priyadarshini Education Trust v. Ratis (Rafia) Bano d/o. Abdul Rasheed -: 3 :- (2007 (6) All MR 238) wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:- "In order to claim benefit of deemed permanency, a teacher must be duly selected, he must be appointed in clear permanent vacancy, his appointment must not be for a fixed/limited period, and preferably it ought to indicate that the appointment is on probation. If and only if these conditions are fulfilled, a teacher will be able to claim deemed permanency on completion of service of two years from the date of appointment on probation or at least by an appointment fulfilling all above conditions, even though the order may not specifically indicate that he is appointed on probation. 1999 (4) ALL MR 174 and 2005 (6) Bom.C.R. 311 - Ref.to (Para 9)." 3. There is no merit in the petition which is hereby dismissed. S.A. BOBDE, J.