1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR L.P.A. NO.278 OF 2009. IN WRIT PETITION NO.4475 OF 2008 (D) HANUMAN SEWA BAHUDESHIYA SAMITI THRO. SECRY. VS THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND OTHERS ______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri D. Duvvuri, Advocate for the appellant. Shri A. D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for Respondent no.2. Shri G. G. Mishra, Advocate for Respondent no.3. CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. DATE : 8th FEBRUARY, 2010. 1. The appellant takes exception to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.4475 of 2008 passed on 12-11-2000. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the present appellant's writ petition. 2. The orders passed by the School Tribunal and the learned Single Judge are challenged mainly on the following grounds: (i) That no employee can get permanancy u/s 5(3) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 2 unless he is appointed in accordance with law. (ii) The School Tribunal ought to have considered the question of legality of the appointment as a preliminary issue. (iii) That the respondent – teacher being over age on the date of entry, he could not have been appointed. (iv) Since the appointment was in accordance with law, it could not be considered as appointment at all. 3. The reliance is placed on the averments contained in para 5 of the written statement filed before Tribunal 4. We have perused the written statement and averments contained in para 5 aforesaid. It is also seen that the question of factual background due to which appointment was illegal were not pleaded or proved before the Tribunal. 5. The appellant on the one hand places reliance on the affidavit sworn by the respondent - teacher drawn in his own hand writing affirming that he shall be content with whatever he gets. In this background, it is clear that it is impossible for the appellant to deny the fact of the appointment of the respondent no.2. 6. The appellant wants to take advantage of is won 3 wrong of leaving the loopholes or illegality in the appointment of respondent no.2. 7. We find that the judgment and order of the Tribunal or of the learned Single Judge considered the points urged. It is a matter of fact that when admittedly, the respondent no.2 is belonging to the Scheduled Caste, he was entitled to the benefit of condonation in his upper age, particularly when he was appointed while the School was run without grant-in-aid.b 8. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed. Judge Judge //mule//