1 WP NO.8204/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8204 OF 2010 BHAUSAHEB BHIKA PATIL VERSUS KAI R C PATIL BAHUDDESHIYA SANSTHA WAWDE AND ORS ... Advocate for Petitioners : Mr.Patil Vinod Prakash AGP for Respondents: Advocate for Respondents 1 and 2:Mr.P.B.Patil, Adv., h/f Mr.R.R.Patil. Respondent no.3 served. ... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. Dated: December 12, 2011 ... PER COURT :- 1. Heard extensively. The petitioner, un-fortunate teacher, is before this Court challenging the order of oral termination and non acceptance of his grievance by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nashik, in Appeal No.JAL/26/2009 dated 29.1.2010. 2. The petitioner is B.A., B.Ed. He was appointed in respondent no.2 school in the year 2002. It is informed, and not disputed that the institute was initially unaided and, consequently, the petitioner did not receive wages. The muster roll, which is imperative, of a teacher to be maintained, was not made available to the petitioner as claimed by him and 2 WP NO.8204/2010 resultantly, there does not seem a signature on the muster roll. 3. The petitioner has canvassed that he has successfully, diligently and honestly discharged his duties as a teacher in the institution and ensured upliftment of the same, time to time. His prompt working in the institution is certified by several certificates flowing from the year 2002 to 2007. One of them is a certificate issued by Block Development Officer of the petitioner attending as a trainee from 24.8.2007 to 25.8.2007. A school attendance sheet for the year 2003 shows the petitioner to be class teacher of XIIIth standard. There are such 10 to 12 attendance sheets signed by the petitioner. The petitioner has worked on election duty, indicated in six such certificates. There are affidavits of students and parents, six in number, to endorse that the petitioner has worked in the school as a teacher and discharged his duties diligently. 4. Inspite of these features favouring the petitioner, the unfortunate part is: he is not appointed by following a regular course of appointment nor he was duly appointed by the school management in tune with the selection process. 3 WP NO.8204/2010 5. It is a matter of record, the documents to which the petitioner has given reference in his petition, reproduced hereinabove also, are not disputed or confronted by the management by filing its reply or not disputed before this Court. The school was, indeed, unaided. The petitioner claimed, having attained a status of permanency by virtue of Section 5(2) of the M.E.P.S.Act, 1977. 6. The management has informed before the School Tribunal that the petitioner was never appointed as a teacher by the school management and there was no clear and permanent vacancy in the school. The petitioner, from the set of record available with him or procured from the Education Department, could not establish existence of permanent vacancy or that he was appointed as a teacher in the school. 7. The petitioner had issued a notice to the school management on 4.9.2008 which was replied by the latter on 1st Oct.,2008. A naive stand was taken by the management that the petitioner never served the institution. The documents referred above are tried to be defused without leading coherent evidence, as was expected. 4 WP NO.8204/2010 8. The only mistake that the petitioner faced was there was no regular appointment in his favour nor there was a clear vacancy at the material time. 9. With all said and done, now the petitioner has crossed the upper age limit for employment. The order under challenge does not call for interference, however, it seems that the petitioner has worked in the institution for few days as a teacher ranging from 2002 to 2008, without any salary. This is primarily indicated from the documents. Consequently, order. ORDER a) Writ Petition is dismissed. The respondent management shall pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. two lacs) within 60 days to the petitioner by either depositing in this Court, or pay the same directly to the petitioner under acknowledgment. No costs. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. ) ... agp/8204-10wp