1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3143 OF 2010. The Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development Department. -: VERSUS :- Ramchandra Tejraoji Khavshi and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 16, 2010. Heard Shri O.D. Kakde, learned A.G.P. for petitioner and Mrs. Neeta Jog, learned counsel for respondent no.1/caveator. Learned A.G.P. points out that the appointment orders issued by the petitioner to respondents were specifically for a period of one year and those appointments were accepted by the respondents without any objection, hence, their continuation for one year and then attempt to discontinue them because of expiry of tenure, did not 2 give them any cause of action and approach the Grievance Committee was therefore, not legal. He further states that as there was no termination and respondents raised grievance about the manner of their continuation only, the Grievance Committee could not have taken cognizance and had no jurisdiction to grant relief of continuing them or restraining petitioners from terminating their services. The Committee finally has quashed the termination in some appeals before it with directions to treat the appellants before it as in continuous service. He contends that reference to resolution dated 13.10.2000 for that purpose is misconceived. Mrs. N. Jog, learned Counsel on the other hand relies upon the written submissions placed before this Court and states that the scheme for appointment of Shikshan Sevaks as evolved and in force required the petitioner to appoint the respondent no.1 as Shikshan sevak for a period of three years. The respondent no.1 along with other respondents has been selected after following due procedure and hence, in view of the 3 government resolution, possess right to continue for three years. She points out that after successful completion of said period of three years which is treated a probation, the shikshan sevak becomes a permanent Assistant Teacher. The scheme as evolved on 13.10.2000 was before the Grievance Committee and the Grievance Committee has therefore rightly exercised the jurisdiction. With the assistance of both the learned counsel I, have perused the papers. It appears that immediately after the effort made by the petitioners to terminate their service, the respondents before this Court approached the Grievance Committee in appeal and Grievance Committee by interim orders protected their services. Those appeals thereafter have been decided finally by judgment dated 20.02.2009. The Grievance Committee has found that the appointment of Shikshan sevaks was as per the Government Resolution dated 13.10.2000 and hence,it possessed necessary jurisdiction. It also found that the appointments for a period of one year was contrary to that scheme. Both 4 these findings are based upon the government resolution and are not perverse or erroneous. Petitioners have not come up with defence that services of respondents were unsatisfactory and hence were sought to be terminated during probation. No case is made out warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction in the present matter. Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.