FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2113 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 1 1] Janata Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Umardari Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded through its President Shri Shivaji s/o. Nagorao Jadhav Age 49 years, Occ. Agriculture R/o. Shivrai Nagar, Nanded Tq. and Dist. Nanded. 2] The Head Master, Shivaji High School, CIDCO, New Nanded Tq. & Dist. Nanded. ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1] The State of Maharashtra through Secretary School Education Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2] The Education Officer, (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. 3] Shri Madhav Govind Godane, Age 47 years, R/o. Fulwad, Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded. ... RESPONDENTS. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2113 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 2 Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. P.P. More,Assistant Govt. Pleader for respondent No.1 and 2. Mr. G.K. Karne, Advocate for respondent No.3 CORAM :- B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATE :- 15th SEPTEMBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER B.R. GAVAI,J.] :- 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. By way of present petition, the petitioner takes exception to the order dated 15/2/2011, vide which, respondent No.2 Education Officer has directed the petitioners to allow the respondent No.3 to join in petitioner No.2 school. 2] Undisputedly, the respondent No.3 was employed as an Assistant Teacher in petitioner No.2 school, run by petitioner No.1. It appears that, according to the management, the respondent No.3 has been terminated on 16.5.2007. This fact is disputed by learned counsel for the respondent No.3, who contends that when the respondent No.3 was on medical leave, some letter was sent by post and as such, he cannot be said to FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2113 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 3 have been terminated. Even accepting the contention of the respondent No.3 that a letter was sent to him terminating his services when he was on leave, the same would fall either under termination or under otherwise termination. Once an employee is terminated, the only recourse available to him is by way of filing an appeal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act. The Education Officer has no business to go into the question of legality or otherwise of the termination of an employee. 3] In that view of the matter, we find that the impugned orders are unsustainable in law. The directions issued by respondent no.2 Education Officer to the petitioner management to permit respondent No.3 to join service are, therefore, quashed and set aside. It is, however, made clear that dismissal of the present petition would not come in the way of the respondent No. 3 in approaching the learned School Tribunal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act, for redressal of his grievance. 4] Admittedly, there is a delay in challenging the order of termination dated 16/5/2007. However, taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances and the orders passed by this court in the earlier round of litigation, we find it just and proper that the delay in filing the appeal, if any filed by the respondent No.3, is required to be condoned. In that view of FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2113 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 4 the matter, we direct the learned Tribunal to entertain the appeal, if filed by respondent No.3, within 30 days from today, without insisting upon the application for condonation of delay. If such appeal is filed within 30 days, the same shall be treated an appeal filed within the period of limitation. Rule made absolute in above terms, with no orders as to costs. [M.T. JOSHI,J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] grt/-