1 40.wp.4329.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION skt WRIT PETITION NO. 4329 OF 2010 Ganesh Nanabhau Gavhane ... Petitioner (Orig. Appellant) Vs. The Principal, K.J.Somaiya College of Arts & Commerce & Ors. ... Respondents (Orig. Respondents) ...... Mr.S.A.Pawar for the petitioners. Mr.K.K.Jadhav for respondent no.1. ...... CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. DATE : AUGUST 26TH, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard Mr.Pawar and Mr. Jadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents respectively. 2 By the impugned order dated 11-02-2010, the Mumbai University College Tribunal dismissed the petitioner’s Appeal No.19 of 2009, challenging the order of termination. The petitioner was appointed with effect from 17-09-2009 on the post of “Office Superintendent” on probation for the period of two years. The respondent-Management, however, noticed that the petitioner’s work was not satisfactory and therefore memos were given to the petitioner informing various lapses 2 40.wp.4329.10.sxw committed by him and directing to improve his work. The petitioner accepted the lapses however, did not improved his work. In the circumstances, the Principal of the College has recommended that petitioner should not be continued in service. Even the petitioner’s assessment report for the year 2009-2010 indicates that his work was average. 3 In the circumstances, the respondent-Management was compelled to terminate the services of the petitioner by an order dated 22-09-2009, since the petitioner was appointed on probation for the period of two years and the respondent-Management did not find his work satisfactory. I do not find any error in the order of termination of the petitioner. The learned Presiding Officer, Mumbai University & College Tribunal has approached the matter from correct point of view. No need to interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4 The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. [ R.V. MORE, J.]