1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.381 of 2008 Smt. Rekha Shivaji Patil Petitioner Vs. Secretary, Shri Warna Vibhag Shikshan & ors. Respondents Mr.G.J.Sabnis for petitioner. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. January 22, 2008 P.C. . Heard Mr.Sabnis, the learned counsel for the petitioner who is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 8/10/2007 rendered by the School Tribunal, Kolhapur Region at Kolhapur thereby dismissing Appeal No.119 of 2001 filed by the petitioner. . The petitioner had claimed that she possessed the qualifications of S.S.C., D.Ed. and on the basis of the same she was appointed on 11/3/1998 as an Assistant Teacher in the Primary School (Warna Vidya Mandir run by the respondent no.1 - Society). She was on leave on 8/10/2001 which she extended upto 14/10/2001 on medical grounds. When she went to 2 resume her duties on 15/10/2001 she was not allowed and thus this was a case of oral termination. She submitted a representation on 18/10/2001 and as there was no response from the management, she addressed a letter dated 22/10/2001 to the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur and finally she filed the appeal before the School Tribunal. . The Society as well as the Head Master filed Written Statement at Exhibit 13 and opposed the application. They denied to have appointed the petitioner on 11/3/1998 but they admitted that she was appointed as a full time Assistant Teacher with effect from 1/7/1999 and was terminated from service from 15/10/2001, solely on the ground that the Education Officer (Primary) refused to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner. . The Tribunal noted that at no point of time the management had released an advertisement to fill in the post of Assistant Teacher in the primary school, the petitioner had not submitted any application against such advertisement, there was no selection procedure followed for her appointment and in fact no appointment letter was issued to her. The 3 Tribunal, therefore, concluded that at no point of time the petitioner was appointed by following the requirements of Section 5 of the MEPS Act, 1977 and unless she was appointed on probation for a period of two years she could not contend that she had attained the status of otherwise permanent teacher. . The Tribunal also noted that the date of birth of the petitioner was 1/6/1969 as per the S.S.C. certificate at Exhibit 19/2-C and she was appointed as per the management with effect from 1/7/1999. As per the Tribunal the petitioner was from an open category and, therefore, under Rule 9(4) of the MEPS Rules, 1981, a candidate above the age of 28 years and belonging to the open category could not have been appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the primary school. There was no exemption granted by the Deputy Director of Education or any separate order was passed granting relaxation in the outer age limit in the case of the petitioner. . For all these reasons the appeal filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed by observing that at no point of time any advertisement was issued to fill in the post held by the petitioner. 4 . The reasoning set out by the School Tribunal cannot be termed as perverse or grossly erroneous so as to call for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Resultantly this petition fails at the threshold and the same is hereby rejected summarily. (B.H.MARL