1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 194 OF 2008 (Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Pragagik Shikshan Sanstha .v. Sapan Ramesh Shende and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri R.L. Khapre, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.N. Shende, Advocate for the respondent No.1. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. 8TH FEBRUARY, 2008. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 28th February, 2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Additional School Tribunal, Nagpur (Chandrapur), thereby rejecting the objection raised by the present petitioner to the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal to entertain the appeal on the ground that the respondent/employee was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak. Shri R.L. Khapre, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the appointment of the respondent No.1, initially as an Assistant Teacher was not valid appointment. He submits that subsequently the respondent/employee 2 had been appointed as a Shikshan Sevak and in fact he has accepted the said appointment. He, therefore, submits that the learned Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as the appeal would go before the Grievance Committee constituted by the State of Maharashtra. Shri P.S. Shende, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly held that it has jurisdiction and as such rightly rejected the objection. It is the settled law that for determining the issue regarding jurisdiction, the averments in the plaint are to be looked into. In the present case, therefore, what is the case of the appellant will have to be looked into from the averments made in the appeal. In the appeal memo, the appellant has specifically pleaded that he was appointed as Qualified Assistant Teacher on 22.11.1997. It is further his case that on completion of period of two years, he has achieved the status of a permanent employee on 21st November, 1999. The learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sanjay Bhagwan Barge .v. President, Nagrik Sahayya Kendra and others (reported in 2005(1) Mh.L.J., 730) has also held that for determining the question of jurisdiction, it is the pleadings made in the appeal memo, the issue of 3 jurisdiction is required to be decided. As discussed herein above, from the perusal of the appeal memo, it cannot be said that there are no averments which would give the jurisdiction to the learned School Tribunal to entertain the appeal. As to whether the contentions raised by the appellant are correct or not would be the question which will have to be gone into after the learned Tribunal considers the merits of the matter. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for warranting any interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is rejected. JUDGE *rrg.