1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 681/2010 Mohd. Abdi Mohd. Sultan -: versus :- Urdu Education Association and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : MARCH 15, 2010. Heard Shri V.A. Kothale, learned counsel for petitioner. School Tribunal has found that appointment of petitioner is not in accordance with law. There was no advertisement. Learned Counsel for petitioner has tried to demonstrate that because there was ban on recruitment, management has permitted petitioner to work and petitioner has worked for almost 8 years, therefore termination of his service has to be in accordance with law. Learned counsel was called upon to substantiate his contention, but except for repeating that termination has to be in accordance with law, no assistance has been extended to this court to appreciate that argument. Even the Division Bench judgment in case of Priyadarshni Education Trust .vrs. Ratis Bano Abdul Rasheed and others reported at 2007 [6] Mh.L.J. 667 has not been explained. 2 The learned counsel has ultimately urged that the Management and not the Education Officer may in such circumstances be held responsible for the state of affairs. It is an admitted position that petitioner has entered the service with open eyes and after giving an undertaking which is at page no.39 with the Writ Petition. I, therefore, find that the petitioner has no right to post. The School Tribunal has correctly appreciated the controversy. No case is made out warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is therefore dismissed with no order as to cost. JUDGE Rgd.