1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2583 OF 2008 Madhav Rajaram Gavai ..Petitioner. Vs. Gokhale Education Society and others ..Respondents. ..... Mr. Susheel Mahadeshwar with Ms. Ranjana Todankar for the Petitioner. Mr. Sagar Talekar with Mr. R.A. Rodrigues for Respondent No.2. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 15th April, 2008. P.C. : 1. The Petitioner has impugned a judgment and order of the Presiding Officer of the Mumbai University and College Tribunal by which the appeal came to be dismissed. 2. The Petitioner was initially appointed as a Principal on probation for a period of two years with effect from 27th February, 2003. On 5th February, 2005 the services of the Petitioner were terminated. Aggrieved by the order of termination the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal which was subsequently 2 withdrawn. Thereafter the Petitioner was appointed afresh on probation on 27th February, 2005 with effect from 1st March, 2005. The appointment was extended for a further period of one year in order to furnish an opportunity to the Petitioner to improve his performance. On 13th February, 2007 the services of the Petitioner were terminated by an order of termination simplicitor. That order was challenged before the University and College Tribunal. While dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal noted that the initial appointment of the Petitioner was terminated on 5th February, 2005 and though the Petitioner had challenged the order of termination, the appeal was withdrawn. Thereafter there was a fresh order of appointment on probation since the statutes did not prohibit the management from doing so. The Tribunal rejected the contention of the Petitioner which was to the effect that in determining as to whether he had satisfactorily completed his period of probation, the entire period including the period prior to the order of termination dated 5th February, 2005 must be taken together with the period after the fresh order of appointment dated 1st March, 2006. The Tribunal held that the Petitioner having accepted a fresh 3 appointment, he was estopped from now contending that the appointment on 1st March, 2006 was a continuation of the earlier appointment. Moreover, as a matter of fact a finding has been arrived at by the Tribunal that between the earlier order of termination on 5th February 2005 and the fresh appointment, no salary was paid. 3. On behalf of the Petitioner it has been urged that in computing the period for probation under Statute 413 of the University Statutes, the earlier period of service rendered by the Petitioner as a probationer from 1st March, 2003 until 5th February, 2005 must be taken into consideration together with the period of probation arising out of the order of appointment dated 1st March, 2006. The submission cannot be accepted. The Tribunal has correctly noted that the earlier order of probation came to an end upon the termination of service on 5th February, 2005. Though this order was challenged in an appeal before the Tribunal, that appeal was withdrawn and the earlier order of termination attained finality. The appointment on 1st March, 2006 was a fresh appointment. In 4 the circumstances, in computing the period of probation for the purpose of Statute 413, the earlier period of appointment which was brought to an end lawfully cannot be counted. The judgment of the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity. The Petitioner was a probationer and his services were terminated by an order of discharge simplicitor after the grant of one extension to the Petitioner to improve upon his performance. There is no merit in the Petition. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. *****