1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2450/2007 (Chandrakant Ramrao Umbarkar ..vs.. Shivaji Education Society & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Dhore, advocate holding for Shri De, counsel for the petitioner Smt. Wandile, AGP for respondent no.3 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 11, 2009. By this petitioner impugns the order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati on 17.3.2006 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner under section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act, 1977, challenging the termination of the petitioner dated 7.10.1994. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the respondent no.3, and on perusal of the impugned order dated 17.3.2006, it appears that the School Tribunal did not commit any mistake in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. The School tribunal on proper appreciation of the material on record held that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1992 without following due procedure prescribed by law. Though it was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on probation for a period of 2 years, in the year 1992, on perusal of the documents on record, the Tribunal held that the petitioner was not appointed on probation for a period of 2 years and was appointed only for one academic 2 session. The Tribunal then held that there was no material to show that the petitioner had worked in the academic session 1993-94. The case of the petitioner that he had worked for 2 years and therefore was a deemed confirmed employee was therefore negatived by the School Tribunal. The School Tribunal held that there was nothing to show that the petitioner was appointed on a permanent post in clear vacancy. No advertisement was placed on record and no permission of the Education Officer for filling up the post in permanent vacancy was filed. The appointment order also did not show that the petitioner was appointed on probation. The School Tribunal then held that the appointment order was not issued by the Headmaster / Secretary of the School Committee and hence it was not an appointment order contemplated by Schedule-D appended to Rules of 1981. The Tribunal held on an appreciation of the facts on record that the School Committee was not legally constituted before the petitioner was appointed and hence the appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with law. The petitioner cannot seek reinstatement in service in view of the resolution of respondent society dated 25.7.1998. Since the findings recorded by Tribunal are based on a proper appreciation of material on record they call for no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. For the reasons aforesaid the petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. SMP JUDGE