1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2153 OF 2010 Suresh Shamraoji Gajare Vs. Dnyaneshwar Vidya Prasarak Mandal & Others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Shri B. G. Kulkarni Adv for petitioner. Shri Sharma Adv for respondents 1, 2. Shri A. W. Joshi AGP for respondent 3. CORAM: .B. P. DHARMADHIKARI J. Dated: 21 st SEPTEMBER, 2010. Heard. School Tribunal has found that there was no advertisement when petitioner was selected and therefore has dismissed his appeal. Contention of Shri Kulkarni learned counsel for the petitioner is, petitioner was selected initially in 1986 and that was after proper advertisement. He was belonging to backward class and was sent on deputation for acquiring B. Ed. Qualification and he secured that qualification in 1991. After securing that qualification he was appointed on probation and after completion of two years he was also confirmed 2 accordingly. Approval has been given to his service by Education Department. He was thereafter subjected to departmental enquiry and terminated. In this situation finding of School Tribunal that there was no advertisement is erroneous. Learned AGP for respondent no.3 and Shri Sharma learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 have supported impugned order. Shri Sharma learned counsel states that the petitioner has not produced any advertisement before the School Tribunal and burden was upon him. Facts clearly show that in 1986 petitioner was not qualified and hence in 1986 advertisement cannot come to his benefit. He obtained requisite qualification in 1991 and became eligible to occupy the permanent and clear vacancy. There after that vacancy was not advertised, hence in view of the Division Bench judgment in Priyadarshini Education Trust and Others Vs. Ratis (Rafia) Bano d/o Abdul Rasheed and Others 2007(6) Maharashtra Law Journal 667 and judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Sanjay Lalbahadur Dwivedi Vs. Shrikrishna Vyayam Shala in 2010(3) Maharashtra Law Journal 666 I do not find any thing wrong in the order of School Tribunal. Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. JUDGE svk 3 4 5 6