1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2879 OF 2001 Jaysing Namdeo Patil, Aged 48 years, Occ. Service, R/o Umarti, Taluka Chopda, District Jalgaon, presently working as Assistant Teacher in Sau. Parwatibai Raisingh Bhadale Primary Ashram School, Umarti, Taluka Chopda, District Jalgaon ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Project, Yawal, Taluka Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon 3. Head Master, Sau. Parwatibai Raisingh Bhadale Primary Ashram School, Umarti, Taluka Chopda, Dist. Jalgaon ..RESPONDENTS Mr P.B. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 & 2; Respondent no.3 served. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 16th June, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V. HARDAS , J ] 2 This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the communication of the respondents, dated 18/19.10.2000 informing the Head Master that the salary grants pertaining to the post of the petitioner as an Art Teacher was not admissible to grants. 2. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as an Art Teacher on 1.6.1990 as the petitioner holds the requisite qualifications. According to the petitioner the approval came to be granted on 3.8.1993. According to the petitioner the petitioner was receiving his salary but by virtue of the impugned communication the post which was held by the petitioner has been held to be inadmissible to grants. 3. The respondents have filed their affidavit in reply and in the affidavit in reply it is stated that as per the staffing pattern post of Art Teacher is not provided in the Ashram school. It also appears that the services of the petitioner came to be terminated by the management on 20.8.2002 and no effective steps have been taken by the petitioner for getting that termination order set aside. 3 4. Since the post of Art Teacher was not a sanctioned post as per the staffing pattern, the same has not been held admissible to grants. We cannot find fault with the said decision of the respondents. Further, it appears that the petitioner has not availed the remedies available to the petitioner in law of challenging his termination. At least the termination order has not been set aside till today. 5. In that light of the matter, there is no merit in the petition and the petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged with no order as to costs. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE amj/wp2879.01