Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7233 of 2007 Shri Manoj Krishna Londe ...Petitioner V/s. Shri Sanjay Annasahebb Chougale & ors. ...Respondents Mrs.L.H.Belingdage, advocate for the petitioner Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar, advocate for respondent no.1 Mr.M.S.Topkar, advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3 Mr.A.P.Vanarse, AGP for respondent no.4 CORAM CORAM CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. DATED DATED DATED : 29th January, 2008 : 29th January, 2008 : 29th January, 2008 P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who was respondent no.4 before the School Tribunal in Appeal No. 125/2000 as the said Appeal has been allowed directing the management to reinstate the appellant i.e. present respondent no.1 in his original post. 2. As per the petitioner he has been appointed against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe, he belongs to Schedule Caste category and he was appointed after he went through the prescribed procedure for selection to the post of Instructor in Trade of Auto Engineering Technical. However, affidavit in reply filed by the management before the School Tribunal clearly indicated 2 that when the appellant was appointed for two academic years, the post was not reserved in which the appellant was appointed. The Assistant Director of Vocational Education and Training, Regional Office at Pune states that there was backlog of reserved category candidates and, therefore, the approval to the appointment of the appellant was on yearly basis. The said affidavit does not state that appellant was appointed against the post reserved for any backward class. Hence, the challenge to the impugned award in the present petition is unsustainable and more so his appointment has not been approved at any time by the Deputy Director, Vocational Education and Training. It is also to be noted that in Appeal No. 125/2000, the School Tribunal has passed an interim order directing the management not to submit the proposal of respondent no.4 for approval. 3. Hence, this petition fails at the threshold and the same is hereby rejected. [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.]