lpa157.11.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. L. P. A. NO.157/2011 Sudhakar Udhavrao Ambagade -vs- Samyak Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri A.S.Kilor, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri S. D. Malke, learned counsel for the R-1 to 3. Shri Deshpande, learned A.G.P. for the R-4. CORAM : SMT.VASANTI A. NAIK & P. B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : 20/06/2011. Heard Shri A.S. Kilor, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri S. D. Malke, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Shri Deshpande, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No.4. We see nothing wrong with the finding of the School Tribunal that the appellant had paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.Twenty Thousand Only) to the respondent No.3, the Management and had further agreed for deduction of sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.Thirty Thousand Only) from his salary, which showed that the holding of interviews was a mere farce and the appellant was illegally appointed on payment of the amount to the Management. The School Tribunal rightly held that this was a cruel joke on the other unemployed and eligible lpa157.11.odt 2/2 candidates. The Single Judge of this Court held that it was an admitted position that the appellant had paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand Only) to the Management and had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand Only) more and hence, there was no case for interference with the judgment passed by the School Tribunal. The submission made on behalf of the appellant that the amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.Twenty Thousand Only) was paid for seeking appointment of the appellant on the post of clerk and the said amount had nothing to do with the selection of the appellant, as the appellant was duly selected by the School Committee was considered by the learned Single Judge and was rightly rejected. Since we see no merit in the letters patent appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE KHUNTE