1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2458 OF 1990 Kamlabai Kaniram Rathod, age: 24 years, Occ: Service & Household, R/o Vasant Nagar, Post Naldurga, Tq. Tuljapur, District Osmanabad. Petitioner Versus 1 The Administrator, Ashram School, Vasant Nagar, Naldurg, Tq.Tuljapur, run by the Naik Magas Samaj Seva Mandal, Vasant Nagar, Naldurg, Tq.Tuljapur, District Osmanabad. 2 Smt.Putlabai w/o Devidas Chavan, age: 24 years, Occ: Service, R/o Vasant Nagar, Naldurg, Tq.Tuljapur, District Osmanabad. 3 The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Aurangabad. Respondents Mrs.A.N.Ansari, advocate for petitioners. Mr. S.R.Barlinge, advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 01 st October, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: 2 1 Petitioner is assailing the order passed by Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Aurangabad, on 18.11.19890 in Appeal No.26 of 1988. 2 According to petitioner, she was appointed as Cook in the hostel run by Respondent-Institution during the academic year 1986-87. Considering her work, according to her, she was issued appointment order and order of appointment of petitioner was on permanent basis and against a clear vacancy. Petitioner performed duties to the satisfaction of her employer. It is further contended that some other employees of the institution made complaint against the Management in respect of non disbursement of salary and Writ Petition No.1130 of 1986 was filed before this Court. No steps appear to have taken to ventilate grievance of employees by the Management or the officers of Education Department. However, the Management, adopting revengeful attitude, issued order of termination on 31.03.1988, thereby terminating services of the petitioner with immediate effect. According to the petitioner, action of termination of services by the Management is intentional and is a revengeful act. Her services have been terminated with a view to accommodate another employee by name Smt.Putlabai Chavan. 3 The employer has resisted the appeal by presenting written statement. The adverse allegations made by petitioner, in 3 the appeal, are denied by the employer. 4 After considering the contentions raised by the petitioner as well as Respondent-employer, learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the appeal holding that the petitioner has no entitlement over the post. It has been observed by the School Tribunal in the judgment that the appointment of petitioner was not as against a clear vacancy and on permanent basis, however, she was appointed on leave vacancy. It is recorded in the judgment that another permanent employee Smt.Putlabai proceeded on long leave and in her place petitioner was appointed to perform the duties of cook. The appointment letter issued in favour of petitioner does not give any right in her favour, much less entitles the petitioner to claim benefits of permanency. 5 I have perused the order passed by School Tribunal and heard arguments advanced by Smt.Ansari, learned Counsel for petitioners. It is apparent on perusal of record that appointment of petitioner was not against a clear vacancy and on permanent basis. The record discloses that petitioner was appointed on leave vacancy created on account of absence of one permanent employee. After resumption of duties by the regular employee, services of petitioner were terminated. I do not find that Presiding Officer of School Tribunal has committed any error in dismissing the appeal. In exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction 4 under Article 227 of the Constitution, no interference is called for. Petition is devoid of merits. 6 Writ Petition, therefore, stands dismissed. Rule discharged. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp245890