1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5246 OF 2008 Shri Kshtriya Maharaj Odiyar Smarak Smruti Mandir Samaj Kalyan Sanstha and others ...Petitioners Versus Shri Shivaji Basavappa Koli and others ...Respondents ..... Mrs. Deshmukh, advocate h/f Mr. V.D. Salunke, advocate for the petitioner Mr. S. N. Kendre, AGP for respondent No.2. ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.12.2007 passed by the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Latur in Appeal No. 331 of 2004. 2 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Divisional Social Welfare Office failed to consider the appointment order, which is whole basis of an appeal, was not issued by the competent authority. It is further submitted that the contention of the respondent No.1 that he was in service in the year 1997-98, is not 2 correct. Learned counsel further submitted that the appeal preferred by the appellant under Rule 55 has to be filed within 30 days, as provided under the law of limitation. No application for condonation of delay was filed and appeal came to be entertained erroneously. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 3 Though the respondents are served, none appears for them. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGP for the State, I have perused the judgment and order passed by the School Tribunal. The appeal was filed by the respondent No.1 herein aggrieved by the oral termination from service, w.e.f. 13.8.2003. 4 While entertaining the appeal filed by respondent No.1 herein, the appellate authority only entertained the appeal to the extent of direction to the petitioner to pay salary as permissible under Rules from its own funds and not from the Government Treasury. On careful perusal the reasons recorded by the School Tribunal, I find that the School Tribunal has taken into consideration the actual services rendered by respondent No.1 and has directed the petitioners to pay permissible salary. In extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227, no case is made out to interfere with the judgment 3 and order dated 11.12.2007. The appellate authority has taken a possible view. Hence, writ petition is devoid of any merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SHINDE, J.) rlj/