1 WP-2091-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2091 OF 2010 Rajendra Laxman Londhe ..Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. M. L. Patil for Petitioner. Mr. S. N. Patil – AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Subhash Langote i/b. Mr. V. A. Madane for Respondent Nos. 5 & 6. Mrs. Hansa Asher-Mehta for Respondent Nos. 7 to 10. CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 16, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The following facts are not in dispute : That the petitioner was appointed part time teacher in the year 2000. The services of the petitioner came to be terminated in the year 2002 vide order dated 2nd February 2002. The petitioner challenged the order of 2 WP-2091-10 termination by filing writ petition no. 2485 of 2002 which was dismissed by this Court on 18th July 2003 with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal. The petitioner for the first time approached the School Tribunal by filing Original Application in the year 2008 which was dismissed by the School Tribunal on 21st July 2008. Against the order of the School Tribunal, writ petition No. 833 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner in this Court which was withdrawn by the petitioner on 6th March 2009. 3. In the back-drop of the above referred facts, it is evident that the order of termination passed by the management in the year 2002 stands confirmed by all the Authorities including this Court. In that view of the matter, the petitioner, in our view, cannot claim any relief. On the other hand, this is an abuse of the process of the Court and therefore we are not inclined to show any indulgence. 4. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the Education Officer at latter point of time in the year 2003 issued directions to the management to reinstate the petitioner / absorb the petitioner in his original post. The said directions were challenged by the management by filing writ petition which was disposed of by this Court on 6th February 2010. So far as the issue involved in the present petition is concerned, in view of the facts referred to 3 WP-2091-10 herein above, the directions issued by the Education Officer, in our view, on the face of it appears to be not consistent with the procedure and law. Consequently the petition, in our view, suffers from lack of merits. Same is dismissed. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)