wp5363.11.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.5363/2011 Maharashtra Rural Education Society -vs- Purushottam Madhukar Donadkar ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri S. Borkar, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 21.10.2011. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur on 21st of September, 2011 partly allowing an appeal filed by the respondent and quashing and setting aside the termination order dated 28/01/2002. The Tribunal on an appreciation of the facts and the record, came to a conclusion that the termination of the respondent was illegal as the respondent was working as a permanent employee in the society and his appointment was also approved by the Education Officer. The Tribunal held that the services of a permanent employee could not have been terminated without holding an enquiry against the employee. Since the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules was wp5363.11.odt 2/3 not followed before terminating the services of the respondent, the Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 21/09/2011 was pleased to set aside the termination order. There is nothing wrong with the judgment passed by the Tribunal on 21/09/2011 setting aside the termination order dated 28/01/2002. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the termination was a proposed termination and the services of the respondent were not terminated when the respondent filed the appeal in March, 2002 is liable to be rejected. On a reading of the termination order dated 28/01/2002, it is clear that it is not a proposed termination order as by the said order, the services of the respondent were terminated with effect from 30/04/2002 and the respondent was asked to hand over the charge to the principal on that day. The appeal was surely tenable against the order dated 28/01/2002 terminating the services of the respondent from 30/04/2002 and directing the petitioner to hand over the charge. It cannot be said that the appeal was premature and hence, the relief could not have been granted to the respondent. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the appeal is barred by limitation is not only fallacious but is contrary to the previous submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the appeal was premature as the services of the respondent were not terminated by the order dated 28/01/2002 and they were proposed to be terminated on 30/04/2002. In this wp5363.11.odt 3/3 background, when the appeal was filed in the month of March, 2002, the petitioner cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold and say that the appeal was barred by limitation. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE