1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Letters Patent Appeal No.11 Of 2010 In Writ Petition No.2535 Of 2009 With CA No.1830/ 2010 In LPA 11/2010 The President, The Saraswati Vidya Mandir, Rever, And Others. ... Appellants. Versus Madan Krishnaji Saitwal & Others. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. M.M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for appellants. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE: 15th OCTOBER, 2010 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The learned counsel Mr. M.M. Bhokarikar appearing for the appellant submitted that, the respondent was not appointed in a sanctioned post in the primary school. The contentions of the 2 respondent No.1 that, he was appointed in the primary section of the school are not correct. The respondent No.1 was appointed in pre-primary school. The counsel further submitted that, as the respondent No.1 was working in pre-primary school the School Tribunal should not have entertained the appeal. There is delay in approaching the Tribunal. As there was misconduct found on the part of the respondent No.1, he was terminated on 11-7-2005. Till the date of his termination the respondent No.1 was serving in pre-primary school. The counsel relied on some of the documents in support of his contention. 3) We had called for the original writ petition. We have perfused relevant record submitted by the parties and reply submitted by the respondent No.1 before the learned Single Judge. We have perused the inspection reports. The learned counsel submitted that, the initial appointment of the respondent No.1 was faulty as the School Committee in accordance with law did not appoint the respondent No.1 but it was the President under whose signature the respondent No.1 was appointed. 3 4) The counsel submitted that the appointment of the respondent No.1 was on honorarium basis. In the submission of the counsel the respondent No.1 has no right to claim appointment in the primary section of the school which was sanctioned later on and started getting grants in aid from the Government. 5) The respondent No.1’s allegation is that as the management wanted to adjust their relatives after the school started getting grants he was terminated and therefore he had to approach the School Tribunal. 6) The questions raised in the appeal are pending before the learned Single Judge. There are disputed questions of facts. The Court will have to enter into the rival contentions of the parties at an appropriate stage. The learned Single Judge stayed the order of Tribunal to the extent of payment of salary till the end of November 2009. The learned Single Judge directed that the salary be paid to the respondent No.1 from 1st December 4 onwards by reinstating in service. The learned Single Judge has gone through the record and list of employees for the years 1998 - 1999 and 1999 - 2000. 7) We do not find any patent illegality in the impugned order for causing interference by us. 8) The Letters Patent Appeal and the Civil Application are dismissed. Dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal shall no affect the merits of the writ petition. Sd/- Sd/- (K.K. TATED, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ lpa.11.10