1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1547 OF 2008 Shantaram Chindhu Mahajan ...Petitioner Versus The Chairman, Bahuuddeshiy Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. P.M. Nagargoje h/f Mr. R.J.Godbole, advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.B. Yawalkar, advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. J.S. Gavane, AGP for respondent No.3 ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 28TH JULY, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2 This petition takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the School Tribunal on 22.12.2006 in appeal No.Jal-45/1997. 3 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the School Tribunal relying on the judgment in the case of Anna Manikrao Pethe, has proceeded to decide point involved in the appeal. In fact 2 the said judgment is overruled by the Full Bench of this Court reported in Mh. L. J. 1997(3) 697. Learned counsel further invited my attention to the findings recorded by the School Tribunal. He submits that though the petitioner worked for two years satisfactorily and the Head Master has issued necessary certificate to that effect, which is annexed to the petition, the management has illegally terminated the services of the petitioner. He further submits that for adjudicating the issue afresh, the matter may be remanded to the School Tribunal. He invited my attention to the provisions of Section 5 of the M.E.P.S. Act 1977 as well as Rule 9 Sub Rule 5 of M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981. He further invited my attention to the grounds raised in the petition and submits that this petition may be entertained. 4 Learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents has invited my attention to the findings recorded by the School Tribunal, where it is recorded that there was no appointment order to the petitioner and the petitioner was never appointed, as contended by the him, his appointment was unknown to any provisions of law and therefore, this petition requires no consideration by this Court and the same be dismissed. 5 After hearing learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and after perusal of the findings recorded by the School Tribunal, it appears that there are disputed questions of facts raised in 3 the petition. The School Tribunal in its judgment has clearly recorded that the petitioner has admitted that he was appointed by oral order. The petitioner has not placed on record before this Court, any appointment order and in absence of that, the School Tribunal held that the petitioner was not appointed as per the provisions of Section 5 of M.E.P.S. Act and ultimately dismissed the appeal. 6 On careful perusal of the findings recorded by the School Tribunal and more particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner has failed to produce any appointment letter on record, either before the School Tribunal or before this Court, I do not see any infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the School Tribunal. The petition is devoid of merits and the same, therefore, is dismissed summarily. *****