1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO: 1177/2008 (Mohan Deoraoji Bidwaik vs. The President Anglo Vernacular Education Society and others ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders. ................................................................................................................................... Mr. Abhay Sambre, Adv. for petitioner Mr. A.D.Mohagaonkar Adv. for Respondent No.1 CORAM: A H JOSHI, J. DATED: 11th April, 2008. *** 1. The services of the petitioner were terminated as the Education Officer did not approve the same. Even it is seen that the said approval was granted on an undertaking of the management on affidavit. 2. Upon termination, petitioner preferred appeal. The Education Officer opposed the petitioner's appeal urging as follows :-- “6. ........ As per roster the said post ought to have been filled from the candidate of ST, VJ, NT. Therefore no approval could have been granted to the appointment of the appellant. However, it was granted subject to condition of observing the roster to that effect management had given the undertaking. On the basis of said undertaking the approval given for only one session on temporary basis i.e. up to 30/04/1999. Later on again management again sent proposal for approval to his appointment which was rejected by his office and again approval was granted one academic session i.e. 01/07/1999 to 30/04/2000. Thus it was contended that the appointment of appellant was not made in clear vacancy and therefore the impugned order of termination is perfectly legal and proper and urged 2 for dismissal of the appeal.” (Page 17 of the paperbook) 3. This pleading of the Education officer is not shown to be factually incorrect in the background that the petitioner was made known from the first year of appointment that it was against a reserved vacancy, by summoning production of roster etc. 4. It is very well borne on record that the plea of reservation was not raised at last moment. The petitioner had an opportunity to deny factuality and correctness which has been not been properly done by the petitioner 5. It is further undisputed that the petitioner was over-age on the day of appointment and is a point adverse to the petitioner. This issue however became insignificant since the post was reserved and appointment was only for one year. 6. The order of School Tribunal which is based on facts so proved, is challenged, however, without finding any fault as to what is held by the School Tribunal. 7. In this situation, the judgment of the School Tribunal cannot be challenged as erroneous or illegal. The challenge fails. 8. No interference is called for Petition is dismissed. JUDGE sahare