1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2132/2007 (Gajanan Uddhavrao Garole Vs. The State of Mah. & ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. Mr. P.B. Patil, Adv. for the petitioner. Mrs. S.S. Wandile, A.G.P. for R-1 & 2. Mr. Dhumale h/f Mr. Anand Parchure, Adv. for R-3. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 19 th NOVEMBER, 2008. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this writ petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati, on 21st November, 2006 in Appeal No. 1/2003, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. On perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal challenging the termination order dated 12/12/2002, on the ground that initial appointment of the petitioner by the management was illegal and not in accordance with the M.E.P.S. Act and the Rules. The appointment of the petitioner on the post of Instructor was approved by the Deputy Direction of Vocational Education and Training, Amravati, for a certain period, and was not subsequently approved in view of the fact that the post of Instructor was reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category and the 2 petitioner belongs to the Other Backward Class. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue pertaining to the reservation of the post or the application of the roster is still not concluded, the impugned order cannot be interfered with on that count alone as it was otherwise found by the Tribunal that the appointment of the petitioner was not made in accordance with law. It was observed by the Tribunal, and rightly so, that there was nothing on record to show that the competent authority had relaxed the condition of experience in the case of the petitioner. The Tribunal observed that there was no evidence to show that prior permission was obtained by the management from the Deputy Director of Vocational Education and Training for relaxing the condition of experience. Though the counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that in accordance with the Government Circular dated 28th July, 2000, the petitioner possesses the experience of one year, the submission cannot be accepted as the petitioner had not taken this stand before the Tribunal. The initial appointment of the petitioner shows that he was appointed on 8/12/1999 and the circular was issued on 28th July, 2000. It is further apparent from the impugned order that apart from the fact that there was a backlog in filling up the posts earmarked for the S.T. Category, the appointment of the petitioner was also not made in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the M.E.P.S. Act, 1977 and Rule 9(5) of the M.E.P.S. 3 Rules, 1981. Though the appointment of the petitioner ought to have been made by the Headmaster and the Secretary of the School Committee, the appointment order in the case of the petitioner was not made by them and was signed by the Secretary of the Society. It also cannot be accepted that the provision of Section 5 of the Act of 1977 requiring the drawing up of the appointment order in the format prescribed in that behalf, is also directory and is a mere irregularity which would not have rendered the appointment order as illegal. The Tribunal has rightly considered the decision of this Court reported in 2002(4) Mh.L.J. 245, to hold that no legal right can be canvassed on the basis of such appointment order. No fault can be found with the impugned judgment passed by the School Tribunal, Amravati, on 21/11/2006. The reasons recorded by the Tribunal for dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, are just and proper. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to cots. JUDGE RMP