1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 629 OF 2010 (Shri Urkuda D. Mandpe vs. Depressed Classes Education Society & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. MARCH 25, 2010. Heard finally Shri Shende, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Patil, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 – Caveator. The order of School Tribunal dated 13.07.2009 dismissing appeal, filed by present petitioner, because of its findings on preliminary issue, is assailed before this Court. Shri Shende, learned counsel states that the petitioner was appointed against permanent/ clear vacancy, hence his appointment was on probation and after completion thereof, he has attained permanency. He further states that the finding of School Tribunal that appointment order was not issued by School Committee is erroneous and requirement of advertisement does not apply as he joined the services in 1990 when the provisions of Rule 9(11) of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, were in field. According to him, as per rule 9 sub-rule (11), when the number of posts in any School is 10 or 2 less, the provisions of sub-rules (7), (8) and (10) of rule 9 are not applicable. Mrs. Patil, learned counsel, on the other hand, contends that the School Tribunal has not found that the appointment of the petitioner in 1990 was against a clear and permanent vacancy. According to her, erroneously the finding that at least since Academic Session 1994-95, the appointment of the petitioner was against permanent vacancy, has been recorded ignoring the document placed on record by the respondent – management. The perusal of MEPS Rules, show that the provisions of Rule 9(11) are deleted from 20.12.1984. It is, therefore, apparent that in 1990, the requirement of issuing advertisement was very much there. The judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Priyadarshini Education Trust vs. Ratis Bano, reported at 2007 (6) Mh. L.J. 667, is, therefore, clearly applicable. In view of the Division Bench ruling and provisions of law, as the entry into service of present petitioner is not in accordance with law, no case is made out warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.