2506wp5489.09.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETIITION NO. 5489 OF 2009 Ramkrushna Pandurang Dhole : PETITIONER -: Versus :- The Education Officer (Secondary, Z. P. , Akola & two others. : RESPONDENTS ................................................................................................................................................................. Mr. P. S. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Wandile, A. G. P. for respondent No. 1, Mr. P.A. Kadu, Advocate for respondents No., 2 & 3. ................................................................................................................................................................. CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATED : 25th JUNE 2010. P. C. : 1. The School Tribunal, in view of the order passed on 26/6/2009, rejected the application tendered by the petitioner along with appeal requesting the Tribunal to condone delay of five years in presenting the appeal. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was employed as an Assistant Teacher by the respondent-institution in the year 1998 and he continued in employment till the year 2003. It is his further contention that since 2003 onwards, the persons in-charge of the Management refused to permit the petitioner to sign the muster roll. It is, however, contended that the petitioner continued in service in spite of such prohibition. He was not paid salary till the year 2008 and in the year 2008, it is the contention of the petitioner that his services were terminated. According to the petitioner, the delay is hardly a year or so and the petitioner had approached the Management on several occasions to put forth his grievances in respect of non payment of salary as well as 2506wp5489.09.odt refusal of the Management not permitting him to sign the muster roll. The Management, however, did not pay any heed to the grievances made by the petitioner. The petitioner, thus, presented an appeal to the Tribunal making grievance in respect of wrongful termination of his services. 2. The respondent-Management has controverted the contention raised by the petitioner by presenting say to the application. It is contended by the Management that in the year 2002, the Education Officer refused to accord approval for appointment of the petitioner on the ground that there is back log which has not been filled in by the Management. It is the contention of the Management that since the year 2003, the petitioner has not attended the School. It is contended that even otherwise, as per the say of the petitioner, he was prohibited from signing the muster roll since 2003, which itself amounts to oral termination and the petitioner-teacher is making grievance in respect of such oral termination after a lapse of about five years. It is contended that an appeal presented by the petitioner is hopelessly barred by time and the delay that has occurred in preferring the appeal before the Scho1ol Tribunal has not been properly explained. The Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions of the parties, was pleased to reject the application tendered by the petitioner. 3. I have perused the order passed by the Tribunal and heard the respective Counsel appearing for the parties. As per the contention of the petitioner, he was refused to sign the muster roll since 2003. The alleged act on the part of the Management itself amounts to an oral termination. The petitioner has made grievance in respect of this illegal act after a lapse of about five years. There was no material placed on record by the petitioner before the Tribunal to substantiate his contention that he continued to attend the School since 2003 and till 2008. There is also no supporting evidence in respect of the contention raised by the petitioner that the Management had forwarded the proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioner to the Education Officer. The Education Officer has presented an affidavit in this matter wherein it has been stated that the proposal in 2506wp5489.09.odt respect of approval of services of the petitioner was refused on 31/12/2002 itself. Thus, the contention raised by the petitioner, that since 2003 onwards he was continued in service till the year 2008, does not appear to have been proved. 4. The School Tribunal has properly assessed the material placed on record by the parties and has passed reasoned order. The reasons recorded by the Tribunal while rejecting the application presented by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay does not appear to be erroneous or perverse. In exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no interference is called for in the instant petition. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is rejected. No costs. JUDGE wwl