1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3468 OF 2005 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JANUARY 15, 2007. Heard Shri Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3 and Shri Thakare, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 & 4. It is apparent that when the petitioner was appointed, she was not trained and she obtained training qualification about two years after her termination. It is, therefore, clear that in view of the provisions of Section 5(1) and Section 5(3) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the petitioner could not have been appointed on probation initially when was was untrained. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was 2 appointed on probation against a permanent vacancy and therefore in view of the provisions of Section 5(3) of the Act, she be deemed to have become permanent is therefore ill-founded. The petitioner has not been appointed against a permanent vacancy in accordance with law and therefore did not have right to post. The perusal of impugned order also reveals that there was no approval given by the Education Department to the services of the petitioner. Shri Mirza, learned counsel wants to cite certain rulings to substantiate his stand that in these circumstances the employer must compensate the petitioner for having cheated her. I find that said argument is difficult to digest because the petitioner was aware of the requirement of law and was also aware that she was not trained and therefore not eligible to hold the post. No case is made out for interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.