1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 22 of 2009 IN Writ Petition No. 4493 of 2008 [decided] [Anand Dnyan Shikshan Sanstha & ors. Vs. Purushottam P. Kumbhare & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. S.G. Jagtap, Adv., for the appellants. Mr. R.S. Parsodkar, Adv., for Respondent No.1. Mr. D.B. Ytengal, AGP for respondent no.2. Ms. S.R. Pathak, Adv., for respondent No.3 Mr. Nikhil Gaikwad, Adv., for intervener. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 10th November, 2009. 1. Writ Petitioners have challenged the order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4493 of 2008, in present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. The challenge is argued raising the ground that two documents, namely Joining Reports [Annexs. M and R], both purportedly dated 3rd July, 1995 furnished by Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent No.3 have not been considered by the School Tribunal as well as by 2 the learned Single Judge. 3. Heard parties. Perused the record, and perused the Documents [Annexs.M and R] which are the foundation of challenge. 4. At the outset, learned Adv.,Mr. Parsodkar for respondent no.1 has pointed out that:- [a] The direct sufferer of the fact that respondent no.1 has succeeded before School Tribunal and upholding of said order by learned Single Judge is the respondent no.3. However, at no point of time, respondent no.3 has challenged the order of the School Tribunal. [b] In so far as present petitioner-Management is concerned, it has no right to challenge the order, when the person, who would be affected, if there exists only one post, would be the respondent no.3 and he has not challenged the order. [c] Therefore, the order has attained finality as regards 3 him. 5. Perusal of impugned orders discloses that :- [a] There existed six posts of Peons which were advertised. [b] Out of those, two were reserved. [c] The Management had submitted a proposal for approval of all peons. [d] The Education Officer approved appointment of respondent no. 3. The Education Officer informed that there was no post available for respondent no.1. 6. The question, which then arose before both fora, is as to genuineness of order issued in favour of the respondent no.3. 7. Considering all factual aspects, learned Single Judge has further found that existence of six posts is not in dispute. The learned Single Judge has recorded a fact- finding at page 164 of the appeal paper-book, which reads as follows:- ................................... 4 The School Tribunal has found that though the management and Respondent No.3 came up with a case that appointment order dated 26.6.1995 was issued in favour of Respondent No.3, the order does not appear to be genuine. The School Tribunal has recorded its reasons for this purpose at pages 126 and 128 of the records. It found that the appointment order issued to Respondent No.1 was typed one while the appointment order allegedly issued to Respondent No.3 was in handwriting. It left the place of application for employment submitted by Respondent No.3 blank and also the date on which he was supposed to get himself medically examined was also left blank. These facts noted by the School Tribunal and relied upon by it to hold that appointment order dated 26.6.1995 issued to Respondent No.3 is not genuine, are not in dispute before me. It is in this background that it has examined the case further and it has found that in response to appointment order dated 25.6.1995, Respondent No.1 had joined duties on 1.7.1995. This fact again is not in dispute before me in present writ petition. 8. The finding of the learned Single Judge quoted in foregoing para, which affirms the finding of the School Tribunal, is not shown to be erroneous or perverse, or challenged being contrary to law. 9. Considering failure of the appellants herein to challenge and to succeed to shatter the said finding, the grievance that Annexures-M 5 and  R are not considered by the Single Judge is relying on a document and ground of no significance. 10. The findings of School Tribunal and learned Single Judge render the joining report of respondent no.3 to be a document to be spurious, like his appointment order. 11. In these premises, no indulgence is called for. Appeal is dismissed with costs. Judge Judge |Hedau|