1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8137 OF 2009 The Secretary, Kari Basweshwar Shikshan Sanstha, Kasarsirsi Taluka Nilanga, Dist. Latur & another ....Petitioners. Versus Tanaji s/o. Namdeorao Mane and another ....Respondents. Shri. V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for petitioners. Shri. R.J. Godbole, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Shri. V.G. Shelke, A.G.P. for respondent No. 2. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 6th July 2010. PER COURT : 1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 9.11.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Latur, allowing the application, Exh. 42, filed by the respondent No. 1/appellant in appeal No. 7/2009 for amendment of memo of appeal. By this application, Exh. 42, the respondent No. 1/employee sought to challenge the order of termination dated 30/31st March 1997. 2. Notice in this matter was issued. Shri. Godbole, the learned counsel, appeared for respondent No. 1/caveator and he was accordingly served with the copy of the petition. The respondent No. 2 is 2 represented by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Shri. Sakolkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently urged that the services of the respondent No. 1 were terminated on 30/31st of March 1997. The order of termination was also served upon the respondent No. 1/employee. However, the appeal is filed in the year 1999, on the basis that the services of the respondent No. 1 were orally terminated by the management on 15.6.1998. Now again, according to him, the respondent want to challenge the written order of termination dated 30/31st March 1997, which was served upon him. According to him, the Tribunal ought not have allowed the application for amendment, as it would change the entire nature of memo of appeal and as against the theory of oral termination, the challenge is to the written order of termination. 4. Shri. Godbole, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1/employee submits that it was for the first time that the respondent No. 1/employee came to know, after going through the written statement filed by the petitioner, that the written order of termination was issued and immediately, therefore, the application for amendment has been filed. According to him, the Tribunal was right in allowing the application for amendment. He further submits that the question, whether the termination order dated 30/31st March 1997 was served upon the respondent No. 1/employee, would be the question before the 3 Tribunal. 5. After going through the memo of appeal, application for amendment and the order passed by the Tribunal on 9.11.2009, it is apparent that the question of change in nature of the claim made in appeal does not at all arise. The Tribunal has, therefore, rightly allowed the application for amendment. The question, raised by Shri. Sakolkar that the order of termination dated 30/31st March 1997 was in fact served upon the respondent No. 1, will have to be gone in to the merits of the matter. The Tribunal, therefore, to frame the issue to that effect and shall deal it in accordance with law. However, that cannot be the ground for rejection of application. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly allowed the application. 6. In the result, there is no substance in this petition. This petition is dismissed. The respondent No. 1/employee is permitted to carry out the amendment within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this writ, by the Tribunal, if it is not already carried out. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/wp8137.09