1 wp 5137.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5137 OF 2011 Annapurna Prashant Mukharji .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri B. V. Virdhe, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri N. B. Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. Shri V. D. Gunale, Advocate h/f Shri S. G. Rudrawar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 5. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 15TH DECEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The present petitioner had filed an appeal before the School Tribunal as against the oral termination. The said appeal is dismissed. Aggrieved thereby present petition is filed. 2. Shri Virdhe, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that when the respondent management has not denied that the petitioner was appointed as an assistant teacher, then the Tribunal could not have given a finding that 2 wp 5137.11 there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was appointed as an assistant teacher. The learned counsel contends that the case of the respondent/management was that the petitioner remained absent. But appeal is dismissed on altogether different count. No reasons are given by the Tribunal while dismissing the appeal. 3. Shri Gunale, the learned counsel supports the order and submits that if the appointment of the employee is not proper and in accordance with the law, then the employee cannot claim any right. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of Priyadarshani Education Trust Vs. Ratis (Rafia) Bano Abdul Rasheed reported in 2007 (6) Mh. L. J. 667. 4. Upon query been made the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 5 submit that the petitioner is only B. A. The petitioner is not qualified to be appointed as an assistant teacher. No appointment order is produced on record. In view of that the petitioner could not have claimed any right to the said post. 3 wp 5137.11 5. In the light of the above, there is no need to enter into the debate as to whether the appointment of the petitioner was according to due process of law or not. As the petitioner is not eligible for the post of assistant teacher, no right can be claimed by the petitioner. In view of that the writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Dec. 11