1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5952/2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders Mr.N.L.Choudhari, counsel for petitioner. Mr.N.N.Jadhav,A.G.P. for R.1 & 4. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 31/08/2010 1] Petitioner seeks to challenge the order passed by Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nashik on 19/11/2009 dismissing the Appeal presented by the petitioner-teacher. 2] It is contended by the petitioner that he was appointed as Shikshan Sevak in the School run by respondent, on 7/2/2005. It is his contention that his initial appointment as Shikshan Sevak was for a period of 3 years. The petitioner on account of his ill health, remained absent from duty from 11/11/2005 and resumed services thereafter since 2 13/2/06. It is his contention that the management has issued oral orders of termination since 21/11/2006. He is seeking quashment of the oral order of termination issued by the management. The management has controverted the contentions raised in the Appeal filed by the petitioner herein. 3] It is contention of the management that the petitioner abdoned his services since 4/7/05, and did not turn back to resume duty at any point of time thereafter. The management has denied the contentions in respect of issuance of oral order of termination on 21/11/2006. It is pointed out that in accordance with Rule 16(2) of M.E.P.S.Rules, 1981, the petitioner was required to tender an application for leave within 7 days, however, the petitioner has failed to point out that at any point of time, he tendered such an application. As per his own say, petitioner has remained absent from duty for a period of 41 days and in respect of which, there is no record to substantiate his contention that he had proceeded on leave during the aforesaid period after securing 3 permission from management. The Tribunal was therefore, justified in recording finding that the petitioner has remained absent from duty without informing the management and without following the Rules in respect of availment of the leave. There is also no record to indicate that petitioner has resumed duty and was in employment with the school since 30/8/2005 till the alleged date of oral termination i.e. 21/11/2006. The petitioner has failed to prove his contentions raised in the Appeal. 4] The order passed by the School Tribunal is proper and does not call for any interference from this Court. Petition is devoid of any merit. Hence stands rejected. (R.M.BORDE,J.) umg/wp-5952-10