IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2437 OF 2009. Janardhan Bhavsan Mahajan. ... PETITIONER. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others. ... RESPONDENTS. ... Ms. Surekha Mahajan, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri V.D. Rakh, A.G.P. for R.Nos.1 to 3. Shri S.S. Phatale, Advocate for R.No.4. ... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 15th JANUARY, 2010. PER COURT: 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is prayed that direction be issued against respondents No.2 to 4 to consider the petitioner for the post of Art / Craft Teacher wherever vacancies would arise and the petitioner’s case be considered on priority basis even in general schools in the State of Maharashtra. This relief is claimed on the assertion that the petitioner was employed in the school run by Rajput Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and that school has since been closed down as it was de- recognized. As a consequence of de-recognition, the employees working in the school were entitled to be absorbed in other school in the vicinity on the principle stated in Rule 25A of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. The argument, though attractive, will have to be stated to be rejected. For, it clearly overlooks that the petitioner was not appointed as a permanent Craft Teacher. On the other hand, it is noticed that there were only two posts of Craft Teachers sanctioned in respect of the school during relevant period. Against the said two posts, Shri Parihar and Shri Meher were appointed by the management. The petitioner and one Mr. Khairnar were also appointed to the post of Craft Teacher in the same school but, their appointments were never approved by the Education Officer. The petitioner, in fact, challenged the said decision of the Education Officer refusing to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner, which challenge failed before this Court and that order has become final. In other words, the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Craft Teacher was not approved by the Education Department. 3. Moreover, the petitioner has conceded in paragraph 8 of the petition that his services were orally terminated on 5th July, 2002. No doubt, the petitioner has challenged that action by way of Writ Petition No. 1061 of 2002. In those proceedings, a statement was made by the management as has been recorded in the order dated 18th February, 2003 that service of the petitioner was never terminated. The fact remains that appointment of the petitioner was not approved by the Education Officer. The obligation of the Department to absorb the employees would arise only in respect of permanent employees. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, since his appointment was not approved by the Department, no direction can be issued against the department to absorb the petitioner. To get over this position, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of l Single Judge of our High Court in the case of Hindi Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai and others v/s Presiding Officer, SchoolTribunal, Mumbai and others (2007(6) Mh.L.J. 563) wherein it is held that for want of approval to the appointment of the incumbent, he would not cease to be a member of the staff. This decision is of no avail to the petitioner. Merely being member of the staff does not qualify to be entitled for the relief in terms of Rule 25A of the Rules of 1981, which is the basis on which the relief is claimed in the present petition. To be entitled to that relief the incumbent should necessarily be a permanent employee whose appointment has been approved by the Authority and not merely member of the staff of the school. 4. Understood thus, no interference is warranted in the present petition as the Education Department cannot take notice of the appointment of the petitioner for having refused approval for his appointment. Hence petition is dismissed. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ] PLK/*