1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 847 / 2010 (Atul Vishwasrao Dhole vs. State of Maharashtra and others ) .................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : D.D.SINHA & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ DATED : 1st February, 2011. Heard Mr. A.V.Gawande, learned Advocate for petitioner; Mr N S Khubalkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 and Mr V.M. Deshpande, for respondents 5 and 6. This Writ Petition is directed against the impugned communication dated 17.12.2005 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Tribal Development, Maharashtra State whereby the appointment of the petitioner along with others came to be cancelled. The following facts are not in dispute, that the petitioner was appointed as a Teacher in Respondent No.5-School run by respondent no.6 with effect from 1.7.2002. Approval was granted to the petitioner by the authorities only for the period commencing from 1.6.2002 to 30.4.2003. There is nothing on record to show that after 2003, the authorities 2 either extended earlier approval which was granted or issued the fresh order of grant of approval. The approval, undoubtedly, had come to an end on 30.4.2003 and the petitioner did not question the said order of approval. It is also not in dispute that at later point of time, services of the petitioner came to be terminated by the authority. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribal Commissioner, which also came to be dismissed. Against that appeal, Writ Petition filed by the petitioner bearing No. 4446/2007 was allowed to be withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 11.12.2010. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the order of termination is in force and validity thereof has not been the subject- matter of litigation before any Court of law. Considering the above-referred facts, two things are evident, namely, the approval of the petitioner came to an end with effect from 30.4.2003 and the order of termination issued by the Authority is in existence. In that view of the matter, it is difficult for us to show any indulgence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2008) 11 SCC 90 in the matter of Rajendra vs. State of Maharashtra and others, in order to substantiate the 3 contention that while passing the impugned order, the principles of natural justice were not observed by the authorities. There is no quarrel with this proposition. However, the same is not applicable to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. The order of termination of the petitioner is still holding the field. In that view of the matter, the law laid down by the Apex Court is not attracted in the present case. The Writ Petition suffers from lack of merit; the same is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE sahare