1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.2719/2010 [Ramesh Shriram Kapgate .vrs. The Education Officer, Z.P. Gondia and others] ................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : NOVEMBER 21, 2011. Heard Shri Anil S. Mardikar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri N.W. Sambre, learned Government Pleader for respondent no.1. Nobody has appeared for respondent nos.2 to 5 though they are served. Shri Mardikar points out that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1995 and that appointment was against the post occupied by one Shri Bagde, who was then terminated by the management. After termination of Bagde, one Patle was appointed and after resignation by said Patle, the petitioner has been appointed. He further asserts that said recruitment is in accordance with law and after due advertisement. According to him, in this situation, reasons given by 2 the Education Department for not issuing approval are incorrect and directions to issue approval with all arrears of salary needs to be given. Shri Sambre, learned Government Pleader points out that the department has already refused approval on 31.1.1998 and the said communication was repeated on 12.10.1998 and 4.1.1999. This refusal was not challenged within time by the petitioner or his employer. It is further urged that even today the employer has chosen not to appear and initial appointment order dated 30.4.1996 appointed the petitioner from 1.7.1995 till 30.4.1996 as a substitute. He contends that in this situation the petitioner has no right to claim any salary from the department. He further points out that claim of salary against private employer may also be barred by limitation. We have perused appointment order dated 30.4.1996. The petitioner has been addressed as substitute therein and period of his employment is 1.7.1995 till 30.4.1996. The petitioner has not produced any other appointment order issued by the management to him thereafter. The refusal of approval on 31.1.1998 and its repeation on 12.10.1998 and 4.1.1999 is not in dispute. In this situation, we do not find it necessary to consider 3 other objections being raised by the learned Government Pleader. The petitioner claimed salary from the date of his appointment till then i.e. for about 15 years. In this situation, with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate steps in the matter as are open to him in the law against his employer- management, we dismiss his claim so far as respondent no.1 is concerned. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande