1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 126 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1095 OF 1990 Sadashiv Dagadappa Khankare .. Appellant Versus Shri Sant Dnyanesh Pratishthan Beed and another .. Respondents Shri N. P. Patil (Jamalpurkar), Advocate for the Appellant. Shri Rajendra Deshmukh, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 08TH OCTOBER, 2009. ORAL ORDER [Per B. R. Gavai, J. ] : 1. By way of present appeal the appellant assails the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 11th July, 2008 in Writ Petition No. 1095/1990 thereby allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 herein. 2. Heard Shri N. P. Patil Jamalpurkar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. The appellant was appointed as assistant teacher vide order dated Nil. 2 3. The service of the appellant came to be approved by the Zilla Parishad, purely for the academic session from 17.06.1987 to 30.04.1988. The services of the petitioner came to be terminated vide notice dated 25th March, 1988 with effect from 01st April, 1988. Being aggrieved thereby an appeal was preferred by the appellant. Same was allowed vide order dated 17th March, 1990. Being aggrieved thereby, the respondent management preferred writ petition bearing writ petition No. 1095/1990. While admitting the petition the order passed by the Tribunal was stayed by this Court. The petition is allowed, hence the present appeal. 4. Shri N. P. Patil Jamalpurkar the learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submits that, the learned Single Judge has failed to take into consideration that the termination was stigmatic in nature and, therefore, it could not have been made without following the procedure prescribed by law. He further submits that, admittedly no departmental proceedings were held and as such, the termination which was vitiated, was rightly set aside by the learned Tribunal. He submits that, the learned Single Judge erred in interfering in the order, where a well reasoned order was passed by the learned Tribunal. 5. Shri Deshmukh the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/Management submits that, the learned Single Judge has rightly found that the appointment of the petitioner was purely temporary and as such no interference is warranted in the findings of learned Single Judge. 3 6. From the appointment order issued in favour of the appellant which surprisingly appears that there only mentioned his surname Khankare and was for limited period till 30th April, 1988. The approval granted by the Education Officer was also for period between 17th June, 1987 to 30th April, 1988. It can thus be seen that, the appointment of the appellant was purely for one academic session. 7. The learned Tribunal has itself in its judgment found that, the appointment was for a specific period. The learned Tribunal itself has observed in its order that, there appears a good deal of force in the contention of the respondent that the "work and behaviour and even the performance of the appellant were not satisfactory from the bulk of documents produced in the shape of copies." In paragraph 7, the learned Tribunal has in detail discussed about the conduct and behaviour of the appellant. Having discussed that, the learned Tribunal further observed "therefore, the above termination notice given to the appellant by the respondent appears to be justified and not therefore, any vindictiveness is not noticed." 8. Having observed all these things in its order, the learned Tribunal allows the appeal only on hyper technical ground that, the termination notice was not issued to the appellant prior to one month from the date on which the termination was to take into effect. 9. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed, that since the 4 appointment of the petitioner was purely temporary for one academic session, the learned Tribunal had erred in allowing the appeal. We find that, view taken by the learned Single is totally in consonance with the settled legal position. 10. In so far as the contention raised by Shri N. P. Patil Jamalpurkar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant that, since the termination is stigmatic, it could not have been made without following due procedure i. e. holding departmental proceeding is concerned. It is to be noted that, the averrments which are made regarding the conduct of the present appellant in the reply filed by the management were necessitated because of specific assertion on behalf of the respondent employee that, the appellant has served the institution regularly and there was no complainant of any student against his performance as a teacher as well as Head Master. In view of this specific assertion, no fault could be found with the act of the management in bringing on record the facts regarding the conduct and behaviour of the respondent, which have also been found to be substantiated by the learned Tribunal. In that view of the matter, the contention raised in this behalf is also without any substance. Having found no merit in the appeal the appeal is dismissed. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ B. R. GAVAI, J.] bsb/Oct. 09