1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 9515 OF 2010 Bhartiya Sanskruti Sanvardhan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal. Versus Kalidas S/o Dinkar Phad and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 9515 OF 2010 Bhartiya Sanskruti Sanvardhan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal. Versus Kalidas S/o Dinkar Phad and others. *** Mr. S. R. Chaukidar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. S. Thombre, Advocate h/f Mr. A. m. Mishra, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. Mr. D. R. Korde Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr. B. N.Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.5 and 6. *** ORAL ORDER: 1. Heard Advocate Mr. Chaukidar for the Petitioner, Advocate Mr. S. S. Thomre, holding for Mr. A. M. Mishra for Respondent No.1, learned A.G.P. Mr. D. R. Korde Patil for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. There is no appearance for Respondent no.4 though served. 2. Advocate Mr. Chaukidar has pointed out that in S.L.P. still pending before 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 9515 OF 2010 Bhartiya Sanskruti Sanvardhan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal. Versus Kalidas S/o Dinkar Phad and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Honourable Apex Court, directions have been issued and parties claiming to be in management of petitioner5 trust are restrained from taking any major policy decision in regard to management or administration thereof. In view of this restraint on powers and realisation that period of probation of Respondent No.1 was expiring and his serve was not satisfactory, petitioner issued an order on 12th June, 2009 and communicated to Respondent No.1 the fact of his unsatisfactory service, the fact of inability to take any decision in the matter. In view of this dead-lock the Respondent No.1 was provisionally permitted to continue further. After this order, Respondent No.1 never reported for duties, by absconding joined hands with rival group in management and filed appeal before the College Tribunal 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 9515 OF 2010 Bhartiya Sanskruti Sanvardhan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal. Versus Kalidas S/o Dinkar Phad and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. under section 59 of Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. In that appeal, present petitioner was arrayed as Respondent No.2. The appeal was compromised by Respondent No.1 with rival group viz. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 and that compromise has been recorded by the Tribunal behind back of present petitioner. Because of that compromise, it has been shown that Respondent No.1 is reinstated back in service and the fact that he absconded from service, is totally lost sight of in the process. Learned counsel contends that this compromise entered into is to the prejudice of the Trust and in any case in the light of the directions of Honourable Apex Court, such a compromise could not have been reached behind the back of the petitioner Secretary. 3. Respective counsel for Respondent No.1 and Respondent Nos.5 and 6 have supported the 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 9515 OF 2010 Bhartiya Sanskruti Sanvardhan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal. Versus Kalidas S/o Dinkar Phad and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. order. They contend that the order issued by petitioner allegedly on 12th June, 2009 stands complied with and the Respondent No.1 has joined back the service. Contention of respondent No.1 is, he was not permitted to join duties and he never absconded or abandoned the service. 4. Perusal of order dated 12th June, 2009 issued by the Petitioner in his capacity as Secretary shows that because of inability to take any decision on further continuation of service of Respondent No.1, his services were continued further with express stipulation that after final adjudication in pending S.L.P. the issue would be resolved. It is, therefore, apparent that on 12th June, 2009 even petitioner has not terminated the service of Respondent No.1. 5. The question now is whether Respondent 5 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 9515 OF 2010 Bhartiya Sanskruti Sanvardhan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal. Versus Kalidas S/o Dinkar Phad and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. No.1 had abandoned the service. The petitioner is not in a position to show to this Court any material indicating such deliberate willful absence of Respondent No.1 from duties. The alleged other group in the management has permitted Respondent No.1 to join duties and accordingly Respondent no.1 has joined duties. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 also claims that Respondent No.1 has also received his salary for work done. 6. The facts clearly show that order dated 12th June, 2009 issued by present Petitioner as Secretary has been implemented and the Respondent No.1 has been permitted to join duties. I, therefore, do not find any substance in the petition. The contention of the petitioner before this Court that he was not heard by College Tribunal while passing 6 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 9515 OF 2010 Bhartiya Sanskruti Sanvardhan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal. Versus Kalidas S/o Dinkar Phad and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. the impugned order loses its significance because of the order dated 12th June, 2009 issued by him. Facts show that other group is in position to control the state of affairs and in any case, none of the groups had terminated Respondent No.1. 7. No case is made out warranting interference. Petition is, therefore, rejected. No costs. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:07/01/2011. ans/9515