1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.29 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1381 OF 2009 ... Shri Jayprakash Pathak ...Appellant v/s. The Head Master, Abhinav Hindi Madhyamik Vidyalaya and ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.N.M.Ganguli for the Appellant. Mr.R.J.Mane, AGP for Respondents Nos.3 & 4. ... CORAM: D.K.Deshmukh & Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota,JJ DATED: 14 th June, 2010 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant. The Appellant by this Appeal challenges the order passed by the 2 learned single Judge of this Court dated 22-9-2009 in Writ Petition No.1381 of 2009. That Writ Petition was filed by the Petitioner challenging the order of the School Tribunal dated 3 rd March, 2009 in Appeal No.MUM/147 of 1997. The School Tribunal by that order had dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant. The Appellant claimed in the Appeal that he was working as a teacher in a recognised primary school from 4-1-1995 and was appointed against a permanent vacancy on probation and that he has successfully completed his probation period and that his services were orally terminated on 20-6-1997. 2. The School Tribunal and the learned single Judge on the basis of the evidence produced before them have found that the Appellant has failed to prove that he was 3 appointed on 4-1-1995. There is no appointment order produced on record. There is also no termination order produced on record, though some evidence appears to have been produced showing that the Appellant was working in the school for some time. The School Tribunal has found that the school was not being run properly, as a result ultimately the recognisation of that school has also been withdrawn. In order that rights are to be created as an employee in a recognised primary school, the appointment has to be made in accordance with the provisions of the Act, which requires that the appointment should be made by an order issued in the form prescribed under the Act. 3. In our opinion, in view of concurrent finding of fact recorded that the Appellant has not been able to prove that he was 4 appointed as a teacher from 4-1-1995 against a clear vacancy, we cannot entertain this Appeal. What is further to be noted is that now even the recognition of that school has been withdrawn. Therefore, it is doubtful whether on withdrawal of the recognition of the school, the School Tribunal will have the jurisdiction to decide the appeal. 4. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion, no relief can be granted to the Appellant. Appeal, therefore, rejected. (D.K.Deshmukh, J.) (R.P.SondurBaldota J.)