bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 8186 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 8186 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 8186 OF 2008 Citizan Welfare Education Society & ors. ... Petitioners v/s Mr.Ansari Mohd. Ramzan Mohd. Makki & anr. ... Respondents Mr.S.K.Shinde i/by Sagar Kasar for the petitioners. Mr.Alok Gupta i/by Mihir Desai for the Resp.No.1. Ms.S.S.Bhende, A.G.P. for the respondent No.2. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: S.A.BOBDE, J. S.A.BOBDE, J. S.A.BOBDE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 4TH FEBRUARY, 2009 4TH FEBRUARY, 2009 4TH FEBRUARY, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The petitioners have challenged the order of the School Tribunal dated 30.6.2008 by which the respondent No.1’s appeal against his termination of service has been allowed. The School Tribunal framed the following points:- (i) Whether appellant has proved that on 11.6.96 the respondent management restrained him from entering into the school premises without any reason and justification which is otherwise 2 termination and is liable to be set aside ? In In In the affirmative. the affirmative. the affirmative. (ii) Whether appellant is entitled for relief as prayed ? In In In the affirmative. the affirmative. the affirmative. (iii) What order ? As As As per the final order. per the final order. per the final order. The Tribunal answered the above points accordingly. 2. The bone of contentions between the parties seems to have been whether the respondent No.1 was appointed in the year 1992 against the permanent vacancy or in the year 1994. The petitioners had contended before the Tribunal that there was no appointment order dated 12.7.1992 but there was an appointment order dated 16.4.1994 and on that basis submitted that the respondent No.1 was appointed purely on temporary basis for the academic year 1994-1995. 3. The learned Tribunal held that even though the appointment order of 1992 was produced on record, the document on record clearly shows that the respondent No.1 was appointed initially on 12.7.1992. In para 26, the Tribunal had dealt with various material which is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the respondent No.1 was appointed on 12.7.1992. 3 4. I find no error in the findings of the School Tribunal. As a consequence, the finding of the School Tribunal that the respondent No.1 must be taken to have confirmed and, therefore, the termination order dated 10.4.1995 which merely gives one month’s notice, is also liable to be upheld. Before this Court, it was initially argued that certain documents which would show that the respondent No.1 was not appointed in the year 1992. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that such documents are not available and have not been produced on record by the petitioners. 5. In the result, there is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby dismissed. ( S.A.BOBDE, J. ) S.A.BOBDE, J. ) S.A.BOBDE, J. )