1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4219/2007 Umesh Kashiram Mahalle vs. President,Shri Saraswati Education Society, Akola and others. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : A.P.LAVANDE, J DATE : 28.7.2008 Heard Mr. S.T.Harkare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H.A.Deshpande, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. None for other respondents. 2. By this application the petitioner challenges the order dated 3rd April, 2006 passed by the School Tribunal, Amravati in Appeal No. 31/91 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 28.2.1991. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Peon in Respondent no.2- Shri Saraswati Vidyalaya,, at Ambashi on 1.9.1989 and thereafter his services were terminated with effect from 28.2.1991. 3. According to respondents 1 and 2 the services of the petitioner were terminated since there was reduction in the division of the School and only one post of peon was sanctioned to the School. Since respondent no.4 was senior to the petitioner, the services of the petitioner were terminated. 4. Against the order of termination the petitioner filed appeal to the School Tribunal which was allowed by order dated 7.1.1993. The said order was challenged by respondents 1 and 2 by filing writ petition no. 779/93 which was allowed by this Court by Judgment and order dated 20.9.2005. This 2` court remanded the matter primarily to decide the issue of seniority between the petitioner and respondent no.4 since no document was produced before the School Tribunal showing the date of appointment of respondent no.4. After the remand the School Tribunal held that the respondent no.4 was senior to the petitioner having been appointed in the year 1986 and also held that since there was only one post the termination of the petitioner was justified. Aggrieved by the order passed by the School Tribunal the petitioner has filed this petition. 5. Mr. Harkare, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was actually no reduction in the division of the School in the year 1991 and in support of this fact he sought to place reliance upon the inspection report of Deputy Director,Amravati Division, Amravati dated 13.11.2007. In so far as the finding of the School Tribunal that the respondent no.4 was senior to the petitioner is concerned Mr. Harkare submitted that the said finding is perverse and, therefore, interference is called for by this court. He, therefore, submitted that the matter be remanded to the Tribunal. 6. Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 supported the impugned order. 7. In the impugned order the School Tribunal has recorded a finding that the termination of the petitioner was on account of reduction in the divisions due to which only one post of peon was available in the respondent school. There was absolutely no evidence led before the School Tribunal to controvert this fact. Moreover, this court while disposing of the Writ Petition No. 779/93 remanded the matter only on the issue of seniority between the petitioner vis-a-vis respondent no.4. This being the position, the petitioner cannot be 3` permitted to raise the issue now that there was no reduction in the division in the year 1991. Moreover, the order passed by the Education Officer by which only one post of peon was made available to the school has not been challenged by the petitioner. As such I find no merit in the submission of Mr. Harkare that actually there was no reduction in the division of the School in the year 1991. In so far as the seniority of respondent no.4 is concerned, the School Tribunal has recorded a finding that respondent no.4 is senior to the petitioner on the basis of the material on record. The petitioner has not led any evidence before the Tribunal to substantiate his plea that he was senior to respondent no.4. I am not inclined to grant prayer of the petitioner for remand at this stage in view of the observations made above. 8. In view of the above,I find no merit in the present petition. Hence, the petition is rejected. C.A.No. 4147/2008: In view of the dismissal of the writ petition nothing survives in this application. Hence, the application is rejected. Judge patle 4`