1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2325 of 2011 Milind Bhaskarrao Pawar ..VS.. Vikas Shikshan Sanstha 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, Adv. for the petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 15 th September, 2011. Heard. There is nothing wrong with the order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur (Chandrapur) on 4.12.2010 dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner as the appointment of the petitioner was not made in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The Tribunal relied on the judgment reported in 2007 (1) Mh. L. J. 597 to dismiss the appeal filed by the petitioner as there was no advertisement of the post on which the petitioner was appointed. Shri Shende, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the post was advertised but the petitioner did not say so before the tribunal and also failed to produce the advertisement before the Tribunal. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner had sought time on two occasions i.e. on 26.8.2011 2 and 2.9.2011 to amend the petition accordingly to point out that there was indeed an advertisement of the post on which the petitioner was appointed, the petitioner has not amended the petition. Since there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Tribunal on 4.12.2010, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan