:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1033 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1033 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1033 OF 2009 Sudhir Rajaram Desai ..Petitioner versus Kasegaon Shikshan Sanstha, Sangli & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. V. S. Kapse for the Petitioner. Mr. A. I. Patel, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 6. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 2ND FEBRUARY, 2009 DATE : 2ND FEBRUARY, 2009 DATE : 2ND FEBRUARY, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard. 2. The petitioner has challenged the Order of School Tribunal upholding the termination of his service as a teacher in Dairy Science Technology with the respondent No.1 Institute. There is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis and in a post reserved for backward class candidate; the petitioner being an open :2: category candidate. The appointments as can be seen from the order were made for one academic year and the petitioner is found to have accepted the appointment orders with the clear understanding that the appointment is against the reserved post and has also given a written consent. The School Tribunal has found that the advertisement itself clearly refer to the post as being reserved for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe. Nothing has been pointed out to suggest that the findings of the Tribunal are not in accordance with law or without any evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to carry on since there was a stay to his termination by the Tribunal. 3. Further, according to the learned counsel in another Writ Petition No. 342 of 1996, the Division Bench passed an order that the petitioner in that case will be continued in service. It does not appear from the Order that the petitioner can derive benefits. On the contrary, the Division Bench directed that the future vacancies in the Respondent School shall be filled in by reserved category candidate till the backlog is cleared and that unless 2/3rd backlog is cleared, service of the :3: petitioner shall not be regularised. In any case the facts and circumstances in which the other Order was passed appear to be different. There is no merit in this petition, which is hereby dismissed. 4. Dismissal of the petitioner’s writ petition shall not come in the way of his being considered for a fresh appointment in accordance with law. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)