1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No.53 of 2009 IN Writ Petition No. 2038 of 2008 [decided] [Vaishali Anantrao Gaupal Vs. Gurukrupa Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. P.B. Patil, Adv., for appellant. Mr. A.P. Tathod, Adv., for respondent nos. 2 and 4. ----- CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. DATE : 29th July, 2009. 1. Heard learned Adv. Mr. P.B. Patil for the appellant and learned Adv. Mr. A.P. Tathod for respondent nos. 2 and 4. 2. The challenge is to judgment delivered by learned Single Judge upholding the order of the School Tribunal whereby termination of services of appellant has been maintained. 3. Adv. Mr. Patil contends that appellant belongs to Other Backward Classes Category and, therefore, in terms of Sub-rule (9) (a) of Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, 2 appellant could have been continued on a post reserved for any other category as candidates from said category were not available. Mr. Patil invites our attention to the fact that vacancies were advertised in the newspaper Deshonnati , which is published in a regional language and has got wide circulation. According to him, the requirement of Sub-rule (8) of Rule 9 of the said Rules that vacancies should also be communicated to Employment Exchange or Social Welfare Officer is only directory and failure thereof cannot have the effect of vitiating the appointment. 4. Learned Adv. Mr. A.P. Tathod for respondent nos. 2 and 4 is opposing the arguments. It is contended that when post is being filled in from other Backward Class candidate and not from reserved category for which it is meant, the provisions of Sub-rule (8) of Rule 9 cannot be read as directory. 5. Perusal of Sub-rules (8) and (9) of Rule 9 both shows that provisions of Sub-rule (9) (a) become available only when candidates from specified reserved category do not become available in spite of advertisements and communications to Employment Exchange or District Social Welfare Officer. Here it has been brought on record that no such communication was sent to Employment Exchange or District Social Welfare Officer. 3 6. It is to be noted that petitioner has worked only for one year and there is also a dispute about the validity or otherwise of the appointment order issued in appellant s favour. In the circumstances, we do not find anything wrong with the approach of learned Single Judge. Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Judge Judge |Hedau| 4