W.P.No.1334 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1334 OF 2010 Smt.Shaikh Shahenaz Gafarsab .. Petitioner Versus The Secretary/President, High Life Social Welfare Society Latur and ors. .. Respondents Mr S.G.Rudrawar, Advocate for petitioner Mr S.Y.Mahajan, Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 Mr V.D.Hon, Advocate for respondent No.3 CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 28th November 2011 PER COURT 1. The present petitioner had filed an appeal before the School Tribunal against his alleged oral termination dated 20.6.2005. The said appeal came to be dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. 2. Shri Rudrawar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a permanent teacher and the procedure as is contemplated is not followed. The petitioner was appointed as an untrained teacher by following the proper procedure, as required under Section 5 of the M.E.P.S. Act. The original appointment letter is also issued from 17.6.1990 to 24.3.1998. The same was issued by the W.P.No.1334 of 2010 2 Managing President of the Institute. The learned Counsel further contends that the second appointment order is also produced on record, which is dated 3.6.1992. Successively the appointment orders were issued by the management, but the tribunal has not considered the same. The learned Counsel further contends that the act of the Education Officer cancelling the performance of the petitioner of the D.Ed. Course is also improper and the same is also assailed in a writ petition before this Court. The School Tribunal has not considered all the aspects. 3. Shri Mahajan, the learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submits that the petitioner at no point of time was appointed. The petitioner has manipulated the record and the School Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion. The learned Counsel further submits that even writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Education Officer cancelling the performance is dismissed in default long back and the same is not yet restored. 4. Shri Hon, the learned Counsel for the Education Officer has placed on record the documents along with the affidavit of the Education Officer (Primary) as per the directions given by this Court. The Education Officer in his affidavit has very categorically stated that the present petitioner has manipulated the inspection report and has played a fraud upon the Court. The petitioner, by submitting false information in the application for getting W.P.No.1334 of 2010 3 admission for the postal D.Ed. has applied to the Education Officer. In the inspection report the name of the petitioner nowhere appeared. The record of the respondent No.3 has been verified from the year 1996 and the name of the petitioner nowhere appeared. In the service record maintained by the department of Education from time to time also does not show that the petitioner was working with the said school at any material point of time. 5. Even the School Tribunal has observed that the appointment orders, which are relied by the petitioner also do not show the date of the said alleged appointment orders and if the documents are perused the date of birth of the petitioner would be 15 years on the date of appointment, which is not permissible. The School Tribunal has also considered all the aspects of the matter and thereby has dismissed the appeal. 6. In view of that, no error is committed by the Tribunal while dismissing the appeal. The writ petition is also dismissed, however, with no orders as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ) (vvr/1334.10wp)