1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.766/2008 Raju Ambadas Khandare ...Versus... Payoshni Shikshan Sanstha, Ghungshi and others -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri S.T. Harkare, Adv. for petitioner] [Shri P.S. Patil, Adv. for respdt. Nos.1 & 2] [AGP for respdt. No.3] CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 28.07.2008 An order made by the School Tribunal, Amravati dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner is under challenge in the present writ petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the persons appointed subsequent to his appointment have been retained and, therefore, even if the appointment of the petitioner was subject to the decision of writ petition filed in the High Court by Dattu Khade, the petitioner should not have been terminated and instead such junior persons appointed subsequently should have been terminated. Alternatively, he prayed 2 for remand to the School Tribunal to enable him to join such junior persons as party respondents to the appeal. Learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Learned A.G.P. for respondent No.3 opposed the writ petition. Having considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner, I find that the petitioner had accepted the appointment in clear terms subject to the decision of the writ petition filed by Dattu Khade. Now that petition having been adversely decided, the question of affecting the persons appointed subsequently in some other posts though of the same cadre does not arise. The petitioner accepted the employment knowing full well about his status. He cannot now try to adversely affect the service career of the persons appointed subsequently who had no concern with the said writ petition. The petitioner having accepted the appointment subject to the decision in the said writ petition filed by Dattu Khade, he cannot be allowed to claim something which cannot be given him. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE ssw