1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.7503 OF 2008. The Secretary - Shri Datta Krupa Shikshan Sanstha, Datta Nagar, Latur. and another ... Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.A.B.Kharosekar, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.T.S.Lodhe, A.G.P. for the State. Mr.Milind Patil, advocate for the Respondent No. 2. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 09.02.2010. PER COURT 1. Heard counsel. 2. The petitioner is Educational institution. The Respondent No.2 was appointed as Clerk to work in Sadanand Vidhyalaya, Latur, run 2 by the petitioner. He was so appointed on 23.6.1994. He worked on the said post for the academic year 1995-96 and 1996-97. The Director of Education called for details of appointment of the Respondent No.2 vide letter dated 8.12.1998. The approval granted to the appointment of the Respondent No.2 was subsequently withdrawn by the Education Officer. No sooner the approval was withdrawn, the petitioner terminated services of the Respondent NO.2. He challenged the termination alleging that the termination was effected without following due procedure under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, 1977 and Rules framed thereunder. The School Tribunal allowed his appeal and held that he was entitled to continue on the original post. The School Tribunal directed his reinstatement along with back wages and consequential benefits. 3. On consideration of the controversy and the findings of the School Tribunal, it is amply clear that the petitioner discontinued services of the Respondent No.2 for want of approval. 3 This act of the petitioner is certainly not in keeping with the law by this Court in "Saint Ulai High School and anothers Vs. Shri Devendra Prasad Jagannathsingh and others" 2007 (1) Mh.L.R. 340. The grant of approval can not be condition for appointment of an employee. The refusal to continue the approval was used as leverage by the petitioner and, therefore, the termination held as illegal. 4. Considering the fact that the petitioner had become deemed permanent in view of Section 5(2) of the M.E.P.S.Act and the termination only for the reason that the approval was withdrawn by the Education Officer, without following due procedure, was effected by the petitioner, I do not find any substance in the petition. Mr.Kharosekar, learned advocate states that the petitioner has paid amount of salary to the Respondent No.2 up till 17.1.2005 because he was in service till that time. He states that the Respondent No.2 remained absent thereafter. If the payment is already made, then the petitioner may prove the same as required U/o XXI 4 Rule 2 of the C.P.C. by obtaining certificate before the School Tribunal, in case execution is filed. The petition is dismissed. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp750308