1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 34 OF 2009 in WRIT PETITION NO. 3274 OF 1995 PETITIONER : Janardan S/o Waman Wankhade, Aged about years, Occu. Nil R/o Amla, Post Walgaon, Dist. Amravati 441 801 - VERSUS - RESPONDENTS : 1] Samrat Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha Through its President, Vilas Nagar, Amravati. 2] The Head Master, Sureshbaba Vidyalaya, Phubgaon, Tah. Nandgaon Khandeshwar, Dist. Amravati. 3] Shri U. R. Dhage, Sant Baba Gadge Vidyalaya, Manjarkhe (Kasba), Tah. Chandur Railway, Dist. Amravati. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S.G.Loney, Advocate for Appellant. Mrs. S.W.Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent nos.1&2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : D. B. BHOSALE ; and PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : 23rd June, 2010. ORAL ORDER (Per : Prasanna B. Varale, J.) 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 2] By this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant has impugned the order dated 15/4/2008, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3274/1995. In the writ petition, the appellant had challenged the order dated 05/10/1995, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati Division, Amravati in Appeal No. 300/1993-A, dismissing the appeal filed by appellant. 3] We have gone through the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge and considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, we find that the learned Single Judge has, by considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in its proper perspective, rightly dismissed the writ petition. 4] The case of the appellant in nut shell is that the appellant was appointed in the year 1991 by respondent no.1 institute against the post of Physical Training Instructor and was posted at Sureshbaba Vidyalaya, Phubgaon. Thereafter he was transferred from Sureshbaba Vidyalaya to one Sant Gadgebaba Vidyalaya, Majarkhed, by order dated 08/12/1991 and subsequently transferred to Sureshbaba Vidyalaya, Phubgaon. The respondent no.1 society at the end of academic session 3 issued the order continuing service of the appellant from 03/7/1992 to 30/4/1993. It is further the case of the appellant that on 11/9/1993, the respondent no.1 management told the appellant that he is removed from service and he should not attend the school. The appellant, being aggrieved by the action of the respondent no.1 management, preferred an appeal before the School Tribunal and submitted that prohibiting him by respondent no.1 management from attending the school, amounts to oral termination. It was submitted by the appellant before the Tribunal that though he worked till the end of academic session 1992-1993 and he was assured by respondent no.1 management to continue him in the service during 1993-94, he was expecting continuity in the service, but his services were orally terminated on 11/9/1993. 5] The respondent no.1 management had participated in the proceedings before the School Tribunal by filing its reply. It was contended by respondent no.1 management that the appellant was initially appointed for a specific period from 15/7/1991 to 30/4/1992 and thereafter he was again appointed during 1992-93. It was further submitted by respondent no.1 management that the appellant had submitted his resignation on 13/10/1992 and the same was accepted by 4 the management in its meeting dated 30/11/1992. It was submitted by respondent no.1 management that the resignation of the appellant was accepted from 14/11/1992 ie.e. after expiry of one month’s notice and the appellant lastly attended the school on 14/11/1992. From 15/11/1992, the appellant neither attended the school not there is any signature in the record of the school about his attendance. The respondent no.1 had filed copies of the relevant documents before the Tribunal. 6] It is the specific case of the respondent no.1 management that the appellant has suppressed the fact of resignation before the Tribunal and filed appeal on the ground of so called oral termination. The respondent no.1 further submitted that the fact of resignation submitted by the appellant was brought before the School Tribunal and the appellant has not challenged the legality of the resignation before the School Tribunal. The School Tribunal, after considering the submissions of the parties as well as the documents and other material produced before it, arrived at conclusion that the appellant has failed to prove that his services were orally terminated from 11/9/1993. It was also observed by the School Tribunal that the appellant has approached the Tribunal at a belated stage and his appeal was barred by limitation. The 5 appellant has failed to file an application for condonation of delay. The School Tribunal, thus, on the above mentioned grounds, found no favour with the contentions raised by the appellant and in the result, the appeal was dismissed by the School Tribunal. 7] The learned Single Judge, while considering the order passed by the Tribunal, observed that – “4. The School Tribunal after hearing parties in the light of averments on record held that the oral termination was not proved by the petitioner. 5. The appellant has not challenged the legality of acceptance of the resignation. It is seen that he even did not had any evidence to prove his pleadings about illegality in resignation etc. 6. ......... 7. The appeal memo does not reveal that the petitioner had really challenged the acceptance of resignation. 8. He did not delete his prayers about oral termination and incorporate suitable challenges. The petitioner had averred that he was orally terminated and maintained it, which is not accepted by the Tribunal.” 6 8] The learned Single Judge also found that the entire service period of the appellant was only as temporary employee. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant so also the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, and considering the material placed before this Court, we find no reason to show indulgence in this Appeal. In the result, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale