1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3531/2009. ( Gopal Avdhutrao Gujar -: versus :- Jijamata Mahila Mandal and others ) 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 11, 2010. Heard finally by consent of Shri J.Y. Ghurde, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri P.S. Patil, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and learned A.G.P. for respondent no.4. Petitioner approached School Tribunal with case that, he has been terminated from 11.07.2003. The respondent Management came up with a defence that, he had resigned from 05.05.2003. Merely because there is no specific challenge raised to this contention, and signature on alleged resignation was accepted as is by the petitioner, School Tribunal dismissed his appeal. Shri Ghurde, learned Counsel contends that the legal requirement in the matter were not looked into while admitting his signature. Petitioner stated before the School Tribunal that, his signature obtained on blank papers were 2 misused and this part of statement made at bar, has also been overlooked. He invites attention to the School Leaving certificates at Exh.H and I with the petition to show that, on 24.06.2003 and 25.07.2003 the petitioner was working as Headmaster. These school leaving certificates are not considered by the School Tribunal at all while concluding that, the petitioner had resigned on 05.05.2003. Shri Patil, learned counsel as also learned A.G.P. appearing for respective respondents, points out that the impugned judgment of the School Tribunal is 25.10.2007 and it has been challenged after about two years in writ jurisdiction. They further states that, after specific defence in written statement about resignation, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to challenge the resignation by amending his appeal memo and that has not been done. It is further stated that, merely because some leaving certificates show the signature of petitioner, that does not mean that the petitioner was working in the school on that date. After hearing the respective counsel, I find that legal provisions for resigning from services as contained in M.E.P.S. Rules, are not considered any where by the School Tribunal. Not only this, only part of the statement made by the petitioner at bar before the School Tribunal has been acted upon while ignoring the remaining part, that his signatures were obtained by the management on blank paper and the same were misused to fabricate resignation. The petitioner was claiming to have worked till 11.07.2003 and his alleged resignation before that date was totally irrelevant unless and until a finding was recorded that, after 5.5.2003 the petitioner did not work in the school. The School leaving 3 certificates produced by the petitioner before the School Tribunal prima facie demonstrate that, he has continued to work in the school in school after 05.05.2003, I therefore, find the impugned judgment delivered by the School Tribunal unsustainable, the same is accordingly quashed and set aside. The proceedings in appeal no. 57/2003 are restored back to the file of the School Tribunal, Amravati for taking fresh decision in accordance with the law, as early as possible and in any case by 30.06.2010. The learned counsel for petitioner states that the post on which the petitioner was working is still vacant. Shri Patil, learned counsel points out that the explanation furnished for delay in petition is not sufficient. As the petitioner has pointed out that because of loss of employment, he was finding it difficult to support his family containing 4 children, wife and parents, in present circumstances, as any irreversible change has not taken place, the delay cannot be held as fatal. However, the management or the Education Officer shall not be required to pay the back wages for this period of two years, if ultimately, the appeal is allowed by the School Tribunal. The other observations made above are only for the purpose of appreciation of the controversy before this Court, and shall not influence the School Tribunal while deciding the appeal on merits. Writ Petition is disposed of with above directions, with no order as to costs. JUDGE 4 Rgd.