Lpa 192.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION L.P.A. 192/2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1616/1996 Sudha Balasaheb Patil Petitioners Vs. Indian Education Society & Ors. Respondents Mr.P.D.Paranjape for the Appellant Mr.Umesh Mankapure for Res.2 to 5 Mr.Nagesh Chavan for Res.1 Mr.Rairikar,AGP for Res.7 Coram-P.B.Majmudar, And Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,JJ. Date- 5th August,2011. P.C. . This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 31/1/2007. The appeal against this order is filed after about four years. The delay has already been condoned and today with the consent of both the parties the matter is taken up for final decision. 2 The appellant was appointed directly by the Lpa 192.11 2 respondent institution on the post of head-mistress in the year 1989. It is an admitted fact that the said appointment was made without following the due procedure of appointment and without seeking permission of Director of Education and without advertising the said post. The appellant, as per the say of the respondent,got appointment because her husband was the Secretary of the Institution. Secondly, the management terminated her services as her appointment was contrary to law. The appellant challenged the same before the School Tribunal. The School Tribunal rejected the said application. However, the appellant was granted compensation by way of six months salary. The said order was challenged before the learned Single Judge by way of Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge decided the matter on merit after hearing the other side as none present on behalf of the appellant before the Single Judge and dismissed the said Writ Petition holding that the appointment of the petitioner as head Lpa 192.11 3 mistress was contrary to the provisions of law as she was not eligible to be appointed without taking permission from the Director of Education as contemplated in Sub Rule 5 of Rule 3. The said order is challenged before us after a period of four years. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that though it is true that the original appointment of the appellant to the post of head mistress was without following due process of law, however, in the meanwhile the appellant was reverted from the post of head mistress to the post of assistant teacher and, therefore, her services could not have been terminated on the ground that her original appointment was contrary to law. 3 In our view there is no substance in the said argument, firstly because the substantive appointment of the appellant is on the post of the head mistress. It cannot be disputed that the said appointment was contrary to law. The management had shown undue Lpa 192.11 4 favour by appointing her on the post of head mistress. Even if subsequently the appellant was reverted to the post of assistant teacher, her original appointment was without following the due procedure of law. The Tribunal has taken charitable view inspite of the aforesaid facts by granting six months compensation. 4 Considering the aforesaid aspects, we do not find any substance in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (P.B.Majmudar,J.) (Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J.)