1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.171 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1099 OF 2001 Mrs.Ratnaprabha Arun Kasar ...APPELLANT. Vs. The Secretary, General Education Institute and Ors. ...RESPONDENTS. Mr.M.V.Limaye i/b.M.P.Vashi & Associates for the Appellant. Mr.P.M.Pradhan, for Respondents. CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI AND CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI AND CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATED : 22ND AUGUST, 2006. DATED : 22ND AUGUST, 2006. DATED : 22ND AUGUST, 2006. P.C.:- . Heard Mr.Limaye learned counsel for the appellant. He contended that learned single judge has not considered the fact that the appellant was appointed in a clear and permanent vacancy and she was working in the school from 1996 to 1998 as craft teacher, and therefore, she could not have been removed without conducting an enquiry as contemplated under Rules 33 to 37 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules. The learned counsel further contended that 2 Mrs.Agashe who was junior to the appellant could not have been given precedence over the appellant. Lastly, he contended that pursuant to the interim order passed by this court, the appellant is working in the school for last five years and this fact ought to have been considered by the learned single judge. . We find no substance in these contentions. The tribunal as well as the learned single judge have rightly held that the appellant was appointed on a contract for a fixed period; and that the appellant was not appointed on any existing post. As such, the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act and Rules are not applicable to her. No fault, can be found with the order of the learned single judge and, therefore, L.P.A. is rejected. [SMT.RANJANA DESAI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]