KPP -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 143 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6179 OF 2010 Mrs. Sarita D. Bhosale ...Appellant vs. The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents Mr. A.M. Joshi for the appellant. None for the respondent. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & A.A. SAYED , JJ. DATE: JUNE 14, 2011. P.C. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated January 14, 2011 in Writ Petition No. 6179 of 2010. By the impugned order, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant and confirmed the order passed by the School Tribunal. The appellant herein challenged the order passed by the respondent management by way of an appeal before the School Tribunal. The School Tribunal after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the appellant was not validly appointed in the institution and the appointment order was made by the Secretary of the School who is the brother-in-law of the present appellant. At the relevant time the husband of the appellant was the Chairman of the Trust. KPP -2- The Tribunal has found that the appellant has failed to prove her case that she was legally and validly appointed. The Tribunal in paragraph 18 of the order has observed as under: “18. When the appellant is claiming that she was interviewed by the School committee and her appointment was made by the school committee, the burden lies on her to prove the interview and any valid resolution for her appointment. It is pertinent to note that though the Appellant’s relatives – the then President Shri D.M. Bhosale and Secretary Shri R.N. Bhosale were at the helm of the affairs at the relevant period, she is unable to produce any material showing that either the Management or the School Committee has conducted any such interview or passed any resolution for her appointment as junior clerk. The inordinate delay in sending proposal about her appointment to the Education Officer also shows it fishy.” The aforesaid order of the Tribunal was challenged before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge has dismissed the petition by holding that the Tribunal was right in holding that the appointment was neither made by the management nor by the School Committee, instead the appellant was appointed by her brother-in-law without any authority. Considering the reasoning of the Tribunal which is confirmed by the learned single in writ petition, this is not a fit case in which this Court would like to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge in this appeal. We accordingly do not find any substance in the appeal and the same is rejected. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. A.A. SAYED, J.