SAVANT R.M.:- 1. By this Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 30.11.2005 passed by the Appellate authority i.e. the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. By the said order the termination of the Respondent no.1 herein was set aside and the Petitioner management was directed to reinstate the Respondent no.1 in his previous post of Arts teacher. 2. The Respondent no.1 was appointed as Arts teacher by appointment letter dated 11.10.1993. Pertinently the said letter does not indicate that the Respondent no.1 was appointed against a reserved post. The proposal for approval of the appointment of Respondent no.1 was thereafter submitted by the Petitioner management, to the District Social Welfare Officer. However, there is no communication of approval for the said year. Thereafter approval has been granted to the appointment of the Respondent no.1 for the years 1995-96, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. Clauses 6 and 11 of the approval letter for the year 2003-2004, indicate that the said approval is granted on the condition that the management, fills in the backlog of the reserved category. The services of the Respondent no.1 came to be terminated on 22.3.2004, on the ground that he was appointed against the post meant for reserved category. The Respondent had initially filed a Writ Petition in this Court claiming permanency. However since his services came to be terminated he withdrew the said Writ Petition for filing an Appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. the Divisional Social Welfare Officer. The Divisional Social Welfare Officer by the impugned order dated 30.11.2005, allowed the said Appeal, and set aside the termination of the Respondent no.1 as Arts teacher and directed his reinstatement in the said post. Whilst allowing the said appeal, the Divisional Social Welfare Officer has inter-alia recorded a finding that on account of the wrong information furnished to the Assistant Commissioner (MVK), at the time of inspection of Roster, wherein at the first inspection, the appointment of the Appellant is shown at point no.4 against O.B.C. and in the inspection dated 30.4.2005 appointment is shown as to have been made against point no.2 against S.T. On both the occasions, appointment is not shown against the post of S.C. which is the relevant roster point. The appellate authority also considered the fact that the appointment of the Appellant has been approved by the competent authority for the years 1995-96, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. Therefore there was approval to the appointment of the Respondent no.1 for the period of eight years. In the said circumstances, the appellate authority came to a conclusion that in terms of the Government resolution dated 2.7.1997, since the appointment of the appellant is proved prior thereto the selection list need not be changed. The appellate authority in the said circumstances, therefore allowed the Appeal. 3. It is sought to be contended on behalf of the Petitioner management and the Respondent no.3 who are the contesting Respondents, that the appointment of the Respondent no.1 was against a reserved post and therefore, he did not have a right to continue. To buttress their said submission, they relied upon clauses 6 and 11 of the appointment letter. Relying on the said clauses, the learned counsel for the Respondents, submit that the appointment of the Respondent no.1, was approved on the condition that the management fills up the backlog. 4. In my view, the reliance on clauses 6 and 11 of the said approval letter on behalf of the said Respondents is mis-placed. The said clauses only indicate that the backlog if any of the reserved category will have to be filled by the management, the said clauses do not put a clog on the appointment of the Respondent no.1, that he is appointed against a reserved post. As indicated above, the appointment letter issued to the Respondent no.1 does not contain any such clause. If the management has mis-represented to the backward class cell in the matter of showing the appointment against various roster points as held by the appellate authority, they would have themselves to blame. 5. Another aspect to be noted is that, the Respondent no.1 was appointed in the year 1993 thereafter, another teacher was appointed in the post purportedly meant for open category. If the post was available, for the open category after the appointment of Respondent no.1, surely the management could have accommodated the Respondent no.1 in the said post but it appears that for the reasons best known to the management, the management insisted on showing the Respondent no.1 against the reserved category. If the post was available, for the open category after the appointment of Respondent no.1, surely the management could have accommodated the Respondent no.1 in the said post but it appears that for the reasons best known to the management, the management insisted on showing the Respondent no.1 against the reserved category. The learned counsel for the Respondent no.1 has also drawn my attention to the seniority list prepared by the management, wherein from year to year there are points in the said seniority list without there being justification for the same. The person who has been appointed after the Respondent no.1, in one of the seniority list has been shown above the Respondent no.1. This by itself speaks for the manner in which the Management is conducting itself. There is also a variance in the stand of the District Social Welfare Officer, before the Appellate Authority and in the present Petition. 6. Having perused the impugned order passed by the Appellate authority, in my view, considering the material which is on record, the reasoning of the appellate authority cannot be faulted with. There is no error committed by the appellate authority, or any other illegality, or infirmity, in the order passed by the Appellate authority for this Court to interfere in it’s writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.