1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 5653 of 2011 Rikhiram Kuwarlal Punde Vs. Navyuvak Education Society, Nagpur and others. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. P.N. Shende, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N.R. Rode, AGP for respondent no.3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 7 th December, 2011. Heard. By the impugned order dated 2nd of July, 2011, the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. Though the petitioner had pleaded that he had continuously worked with the respondent management for a period of nearly five years and his appointment was made by following the due procedure prescribed by law, there was nothing on record to show that the management had issued an advertisement in the newspaper calling applications from candidates seeking appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher, at the relevant time. In fact, it was not even pleaded by the petitioner that the management had indeed issued an advertisement and had also called for candidates from the Employment Exchange and his appointment was made by following the aforesaid procedure. In the absence of any 2 pleading and proof in this regard, the Tribunal rightly held that the appointment of the petitioner was not made by following the due procedure prescribed by law and the petitioner was not entitled to reinstatement in service. No fault can be found with the findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan.