1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 242/2010. ( Vidhya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Nagpur & ors. -: versus :- Kailash Mahadeorao Kurhekar and another ) 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 : JANUARY 19, 2010. Heard Ku. K. Pathak, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri R.S. Parsodkar, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and learned A.G.P. for respondent no. 2. Challenge is to judgment of School Tribunal dated 19.12.2009, whereby the School Tribunal gave relief of reinstatement with continuity and without back wages to respondent no.1. Contention is, respondent no.1 was appointed on year to year basis and hence it had no right to post. He was appointed in middle school and finding of School Tribunal that he worked in High School or he was appointed in High School is perverse. In this background, with the assistance of all the learned counsel, I have perused the record. The musters produced by the Management before the School Tribunal show that in the month of November, 1995 three teachers have signed above the heading Middle School Teachers. The names of teachers appearing below said heading are therefore teacher working in middle school. 2 Name of petitioner does not figure in it. In other muster roll for the months January, 1996 and February 1996 though name of petitioner is mentioned, his signature does not appear. School Tribunal has expressly recorded that, it has enquired from the Headmaster Shri Raut, who was present before it at the time of hearing in this respect and Shri Raut replied that there was no permission from the Education department to classes from 5th to 7th standard and therefore muster roll of middle school teachers was not prepared. School Tribunal has drawn inference from this that muster roll produced before it was of high school teachers. It is to be noted that in paragraph no.18 the School Tribunal has relied upon certain factors to substantiate its conclusion and it has found that pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 in which petitioner was appointed was meant for high school teacher only. Thus, the question of fact has been answered by the School Tribunal after appreciating the material before it. Petitioner Management has not pointed out to School Tribunal that in high school some body else was shouldering the work load claimed by respondent no.1 and therefore, he could not have worked there. Even before this Court, there is no such effort. In the circumstances, the findings of School Tribunal cannot be labeled as perverse or without jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed, with no order as to cost. JUDGE Rgd.