Ku. Suchita Prabhakar Bramhe v. Vidarbha Prabodhan Mandal, Thr. President And Others

29..odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4598 OF 2021 Ku. Suchita Prabhakar Bramhe Vs. Vidarbha Prabodhan Mandal, through its President and ors.

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Mr. S. K. Kale, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. A. B Kuradkar, Advocate for respondent Nos.1and 2. Mr. Harmain Khan, Advocate h/f. Mr. Mohd. Ateeque, Advocate for respondent No.4.

Mr. S. B. Bissa, AGP for respondent/State.

CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.

DATE : 26.11.2025.

.

The present petition arises out of judgment and order dated 21.08.2019 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati in Appeal No.35 of 2018. By the said judgment and order the learned Tribunal has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant challenging termination of her service. 2.

Perusal of findings recorded by the learned Tribunal will demonstrate that the appellant was appointed in respondent no.2-school on clock-hour basis and as such the learned Tribunal has held that the petitioner/appellant had failed to make out any right against the post. It is also found that the appointment was not made by following the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules.

3.

Perusal of the petition will demonstrate the fact that the appointment of the petitioner/appellant was on clock-hour basis is not disputed.

29..odt 4.

The learned Advocate for the petitioner states that there was full-time workload available for the petitioner and therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have set aside the order of termination and granted the relief of reinstatement, since the termination is without following the due process of law. The said contention cannot be accepted, since appointment of the petitioner was admittedly made on clock-hour basis and as she was never appointed as a regular employee by following the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules. It is obvious that petitioner did not have any right over the post held by her while working on clock-hour basis. 5.

In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the judgment and order impugned. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. (ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) Tanmay...