1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7235 OF 2008 Saraswati Narsing Lade } Age : Years, Occ. : Service, } R/o : Nilanga, Tq. Nilanga, } Dist. Latur. } .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The Secretary } Vivekanand Education Society, } Nanand, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur. } 2. The Head Master } Dnyaneshwar Vidhyalaya,Nanand } Run through Vivekanand } Education Society, Nanand, } Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur. } 3. The Education Officer } (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Latur. } .... RESPONDENTS Mr. A.M.Gaddime, Advocate holding for Mr. V.D.Gunale, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. N.N.Jadhav, A.G.P. for State – Respondent No. 1. Mr. G.O.Wattamwar holding for Mr. S.G. Rudrawar, Advocate for respondent no. 1. 2 CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 03/03/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns Judgment rendered by the School Tribunal in Appeal No. 62 of 2007 dated 18/7/2008. 2. The petitioner alleged that she was appointed as Assistant Teacher on the establishment of the school run by the respondent no. 1 – educational society. She asserted that she completed B.Ed. course as in service candidate with due permission of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and had worked as Assistant Teacher continuously for more than 2 years up till 17/10/2007. However, she was illegally terminated on 17/10/2007 though she was qualified and duly appointed as Assistant Teacher. The School Tribunal dismissed her Appeal on the ground that she was appointed against the reserved post and only for temporary period. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the relevant record as well as the reasonings of the School Tribunal, it is manifestly clear that the petitioner was appointed on the basis of her application without there being any advertisement for filling the post of Assistant Teacher. It appears that she applied on 3 10/6/1995 and the appointment order ( Exh. A ) was issued on 12/6/1995. There was no screening of the application nor selection process was adopted through the selection committee of the school. The appointment letter itself shows that she was appointed against the reserved post and the appointment was of temporary nature. One of the conditions for such appointment was that she would be required to execute the assurance letter that she will not claim any right on the post. She did execute such assurance letter. 4. The petitioner’s appointment was not in accordance with the rules nor it was for probation period. Under the circumstances, the impugned Judgment can not be faulted with. There is hardly any merit in the petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed. No costs. [ V.R.KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE knp/WP 7235.08