IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 224 OF 2009 SHRI. SADANAND P. GAAD ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. S. D. Padiyar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr Vivek Rodrigues, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the respondents. Coram:- SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. Date:- 13th November, 2009 P.C. Heard Shri Padiyar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Rodrigues, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Clerk, on purely temporary basis, and with a rider that his services could be terminated without any notice. There is no dispute that this appointment by order dated 13.8.1991 was made by the Administrator of Devasthans, in terms of Article 70(4) of the Devasthan Regulation. The petitioner's services came to be terminated by order dated 12.9.2008. A representation made by the petitioner for reinstatement came to be rejected by order dated 27.1.2009. The present petition has been filed on 6.3.2009, challenging the said termination, and, the preliminary objection taken on behalf of the respondents, is that in terms of Article 71 of the said Regulation, the petitioner has remedy to file an appeal to the Administrative, Fiscal and Audit Tribunal. 3. As already stated, there is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed in terms of Article 70(4) of the said Regulation and pursuant to the appointment, the petitioner was being paid from the fund contributed for by the Devasthans. Sub-Article (4) of Article 70 of the said Regulation gives right to the Administrator to appoint temporarily clerks and Article 71 provides that against the decisions and orders of the Administrator, appeals can be filed to the Administrative, Fiscal and Audit Tribunal. 4. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner, referring to the Government Order dated 14.11.1960, submits that the petitioner had all the rights which are available to a Government Servant. He further submits that Article 71 does not provide for an adequate or efficacious remedy by way of an appeal. The learned Counsel further submits that there is no Administrative, Fiscal and Audit Tribunal functioning in this State, as contemplated by Article 71 of the said Regulation, inasmuch as the said Tribunal also will have no powers to set aside the order of dismissal and/or grant the other reliefs sought by the petitioner in the present petition. 5. Shri Rodrigues, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that Article 71 of the said Regulation does provide for adequate and efficacious remedy to the petitioner, against termination of his services and, therefore, this writ petition ought not to be entertained by this Court. Learned Counsel further submits that there is an Administrative Tribunal in this State, exercising the jurisdiction which the Administrative Tribunal is required to exercise in terms of the said Regulation and, in case, the said Tribunal does not have such jurisdiction, it is for the petitioner to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. We are not inclined to accept the submissions made by Shri Padiyar on behalf of the petitioner. The fact remains, which is not disputed, that the petitioner was appointed by the Administrator under Article 70(4) of the Regulation and his services have been terminated by the authority who appointed him i.e. the Administrator. The termination is the decision of the Administrator. Against the decision of the Administrator, an appeal is provided under Section 71 of the Regulation. Therefore, the termination is an appealable decision/order. There is no challenge in this petition that the Administrative Tribunal functioning in this State, has no jurisdiction to decide the matters under the Regulation. Whether the petitioner enjoys the status of a Government servant or not, in terms of Government Order, is a matter which can also be decided in the appeal to be filed by the petitioner. Relying on certain decisions of the Apex Court, learned Counsel submits that the Administrative Tribunal may not be able to grant him the reliefs sought in this petition. We are unable to agree with this submission, as well. The Appellate Forum can always set aside the order of termination in case it is erroneous, with all consequential benefits. In case the petitioner's status is of workmen, the petitioner is also entitled to seek his remedy elsewhere and not in writ jurisdiction. 6. Considering that the petitioner's appointment was made in terms of Article 70(4) of the said Regulation, the said Regulation give to the petitioner a right of appeal in terms of Article 71. Whatever may be the status of the petitioner, once the right of appeal is provided to him, his termination can be considered by an appellate authority, and therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition and we proceed to dismiss the same, with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against the order of termination of his services. The Tribunal, in our prima facie view, does exercise, in matters arising from the Regulation, jurisdiction against the orders of the Administrator of Devasthans, as rightly submitted on behalf of the respondents. 7. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of, with liberty as aforesaid. No order as to costs. SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. ssm.