1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.4474/2010 The Jeewandeep Shikshan Sanstha and another Vs. Ku. Lalita D. Mankar and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. P. M. Deshkar, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr. S. S. Adkar, Advocate for respondent no.1. Ms. Deshpande, AGP for respondent 3 and 4. CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 23rd SEPTMBER, 2010. 1] Heard. 2] Contention of Advocate Deshkar is that respondent no.1 was appointed with express understanding that in case of misconduct, her appointment would be cancelled. He has invited attention to the appointment order for said purpose and also to resolution dated 10.1.2009 passed by the School Committee. Learned counsel states that School Committee has noted her behaviour and performance and decided to terminate her. 3] Advocate Adkar contents that resolution of School committee (alleged) only shows that administrative action should be taken in the matter. According to him, holding of departmental inquiry was therefore must. 4] Perusal of appointment order does not show that for 2 mis-conduct, services can be terminated without holding departmental inquiry. Resolution of School Committee only takes note of alleged misbehaviour or unsatisfactory performance and permits Head Mistress to take appropriate administrative action. That administrative action has not been taken. The consideration of controversy by School Tribunal, therefore, cannot said to be erroneous or perverse. 5] Hence, the writ petition is rejected. No costs. JUDGE Ambulkar.