1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.9785 OF 2010. Jitendra Suresh Joshi. .. PETITIONER. VERSUS The Chairman, Shri Shivaji Vidya Prasarak Sanstha, Dhule & others. .. RESPONDENTS. ... Shri Bramhe Shailesh P., Advocate for Petitioner. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE,J. 16th November, 2010. PER COURT: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the fact that the petitioner was appointed for three years and approval to his services was granted for three years. He further submitted that since the 2 record was in the custody of the respondent - management, it was incumbent upon the management to produce the record or the material before the tribunal to show that the appointment of the petitioner was on ad hoc basis. The findings of the tribunal that the petitioner was obliged to produce the material or letter in support of his contention is not sustainable. The management was bound to produce the documents on record since the same were in the custody of the management. The relevant Rules and judgment of this Court, unequivocally indicate that the management is supposed to produce the relevant documents on record. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the reported judgment of this Court in the case of Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Wani vs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati and another (2005(4) Mh.L.J. 485). He further submitted that the management cannot be allowed to take advantage or benefit 3 of its own wrong. He also invited my attention to the reported judgment of this Court in the case of Hindi Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai and others vs. Presiding officer, School Tribunal, Mumbai and others, (2007(6) Mh.L.J. 563). The learned Counsel for the petitioner, at the cost of repetition, further submitted that since the approval was granted by the State authorities for three years, the appointment of the petitioner was for three years and the management cannot be allowed to contend that the appointment was ad hoc, on year to year basis. He invited my attention to the grounds taken in the writ petition and annexures thereto and submitted that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 3. I have given due consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the tribunal. The School Tribunal framed two points for its 4 determination; (i) Whether the appellant has established that he was duly appointed by the school management? and finding on the said point was recorded in negative. The second point was - whether the appellant has established that the school management has illegally terminated his services in the month of June, 2004? This point was also answered in negative. 4. On perusal of page 14 i.e. appointment letter, which was produced by the management on record, it appears that the petitioner was appointed for the period from 1st July, 2000 to 30th April, 2001. Further perusal of another appointment letter, which is part of the compilation, shows that the petitioner was appointed for the period from 18th June, 2002 to 30th April, 2003. In short, the management placed on record the appointment letters of the petitioner in which the period of appointment was shows for one year each. 5 5. The school tribunal, in paragraph 9 of the judgment, has observed that the appellant has not produced on record the initial order of appointment. It is further observed that in absence of order of appointment of the appellant, it is difficult to digest the fact that appellant was appointed for a period of three years by the school management. The tribunal further in para 10 has referred to the list of documents dated 25th March, 2010 which shows that the appellant / present petitioner was appointed only for one academic year i.e. for the period from 18th June, 2002 to 30th April, 2003. The tribunal further in para 11 has observed that the appellant has not produced sufficient material to show that he was duly selected by the school management. Further, in para 13, the tribunal has recorded the finding of fact that the assertion of the petitioner that his services came to be terminated in the month of June, 2004 by oral 6 order is untrustworthy. The tribunal has recorded that even after these dates, there is material on record to show that the petitioner was working with the respondent - management. 6. The judgment in the case of Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Wani (supra), relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is in respect of interpretation of sections 9 and 5(3) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1978. The Court was considering the issue of filling in permanent vacancy in the facts of that case. In that case, the management did not produce on record any document to show that the appointment of the petitioner therein was on temporary basis. However, in the present case, as stated earlier, there are two appointment letters on record which unequivocally indicate that the petitioner was appointed for one year. Merely because the authority has wrongly granted 7 three years approval, it would not entitle the petitioner to contend that he was appointed for three years. The petitioner utterly failed to produce on record any material to show that his appointment was for three years. On the contrary, the respondent management had placed on record the appointment letter which shows that the petitioner was appointed for one year. 7. No case is made out for interference. Hence, writ petition stands dismissed in limine. [ S.S. SHINDE ] JUDGE. ... PLK/*