:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1997 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO. 1997 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO. 1997 OF 2005 Prasad S. Dongaonkar ..Petitioner versus The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Mumbai & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. P. M. Gupte for the Petitioner. Mr. A. G. Kothari for the Respondents. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 21ST JULY, 2008. DATE : 21ST JULY, 2008. DATE : 21ST JULY, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . The petitioner has challenged the Order of the School Tribunal dismissing his Appeal against his termination as an Assistant Teacher. 2. The petitioner was serving as an Assistant Teacher under an Order dated 13.6.1997 when his services were terminated. This appointment order at Exhibit ’B’ was in a clear vacancy and the petitioner was appointed for two years on probation. His services were terminated by an Order dated 8.8.1998 i.e. after a period of about one year. The School Tribunal has rightly held the termination of the petitioner’s services as within the probation :2: period. 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner however submitted that the petitioner had served for more than two years since he was initially appointed under an appointment order dated 1.7.1996. That appointment order dated 1.7.1996 at Exhibit ’A’ shows that he was appointed specifically for a period from 1.7.1996 to 1.5.1997. That appointment thus came to an end on 1.5.1997. Thereafter the petitioner made fresh application dated 15.5.1997 and he was appointed on 13.6.1997. It is during the latter appointment which was for a period of two years that his services came to be terminated. 4. The learned School Tribunal has rightly relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Education Society & Anr. vs. S. K. Hindustan Education Society & Anr. vs. S. K. Hindustan Education Society & Anr. vs. S. K. Kaleem Sk. Gulam Nabi & Ors. [1997(3) Supreme 292] Kaleem Sk. Gulam Nabi & Ors. [1997(3) Supreme 292] Kaleem Sk. Gulam Nabi & Ors. [1997(3) Supreme 292] 5. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the termination order is not by the Management and it is only by the Manager. There is no merit in this contention because the designation shows that the Manager is also the Sole Trustee. Moreover this point has not been raised :3: before the School Tribunal and the Respondents had no opportunity to rebut the same. 6. In this view of the matter, the petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)