(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 138 OF 2009 Sunil s/o. Jivan Salunke, Age : 42 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. Dhar, Taluka : Amalner, District : Jalgaon. .. Appellant. versus 1. The Superintending Engineer, Special Project Circle, Jalgaon. 2. The Executive Engineer (North Division), Jalgaon. 3. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Division, Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon. 4. The Sub-Divisional Engineer, Public Works Sub-Division, Chopda, Taluka : Chopda, District : Jalgaon. .. Respondents. .......................... Mr. Pravin S. Patil, Advocate, for the appellant. .......................... (2) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 24TH AUGUST 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. By way of present appeal, the appellant challenges the order dated 19th June 2009, vide which the learned Single Judge of this court has allowed the Writ Petition, being Writ Petition No. 625/2002, filed by the respondents and setting aside the order passed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court, Jalgaon, in Complaint (ULP) No. 153/1998. 2. The learned Single Judge while allowing the petition, has found that the learned Judge of the Labour Court has failed to take into consideration two aspects of the matter. Firstly, that certain conditions were required to be fulfilled by the appointee vide appointment order dated 7th October 1993 and on non-fulfillment of the conditions, the employee has no right to continue in service, and secondly, the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent for more than 240 days preceding the year of termination. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in so far as the first ground is concerned, the appellant has now acquired the necessary qualification of typing test. In so far as the absence is concerned, it is submitted, that the appellant was ill and a medical certificate was placed on record to that effect. (3) 4. Perusal of the record would reveal that the appellant was terminated in the year 1996. Admittedly, on the date of termination, the petitioner had not fulfilled the conditions as stipulated in the appointment order. In so far as reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the appellant, on the certificate of typing test is concerned, it can be seen that the said examination has been passed in the year 2000 i.e. much prior to his termination. In that view of the matter, the first ground raised by the appellant is without substance. In so far as second ground is concerned, it can be seen from the record, that the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent for a period of more than 240 days and though he was directed to obtain a certificate from Civil Surgeon, surviving his illness, the appellant had failed to do so. 5. In that view of the matter, no error could be found with the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge, so as to warrant interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 6. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/138lpa