1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR C.A.W. NO.632/2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 419/2009 ( Jamdar High School ..vs.. Sunil Bhoyar) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- CORAM : S.R.DONGAONKAR, J. DATE : 30th MARCH , 2009 Heard Shri Lala, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri S.I. Khan, Advocate for the respondent who was caveator. It is submitted by learned counsel for respondent – caveator that as the caveator did not turn up, he is withdrawing the power and he wants to issue notice to him. He may do so. List the matter on 17.4.2009. 0 0 0 Civil Application No.632/2009: Heard learned cousnel for the parties. Petitioner by this application wants to implead one respondent no.3- Rokde, Assistant Teacher, saying that he is pretending to be the Headmaster of the petitioner – school and preparing false record and making submissions in favour of the present respondent. By this application some amendment is also sought to the 2 petition saying that the respondent at the relevant time was working in some other college. As regards the impleding of respondent no.3 – Shri Rokde, suffice it to say, he was not party before the School Tribunal whose order is impugned in this petition. As such he does not seem to be necessary party for the decision of this petition. Therefore, the application in that respect is rejected. As regards the amendment, the petitioner wants to amend the petition by incorporating the facts in the petition that the respondent was also working in some other school namely Sainath Kanishta Mahavidyalaya, Nagpur at the relevant time etc. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed this part of the amendment saying that this aspect was not brought before the School Tribunal. In my opinion as the question of work load allotted to the respondent in the petitioner / college is to be considered, his working in other school at the same time would have important bearing on the subject matter of the petition. Hence that amendment will have to be allowed. 3 As regards the placing of the workload of respondent on record, the earlier order of this court is explicit. Therefore, same can be placed on record by way of separate statement for which no amendment to the petition is necessary. In the above circumstances, this application is partly allowed i.e. to insert the contention of the petitioner as regards respondent's serving in other college at the relevant time. Respondent may file reply to the amended part of the petition after the same is carried out. Application stands disposed of. 000 Civil Application No.631/2009: Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioner wants to file reply to this application of the respondent. Same be filed within a period of 15 days. S.O. 17.4.2009. JUDGE SMP