1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Letters Paten Appeal No. 30 of 2011. In Writ Petition No. 1642 of 1999. Ms. Ushakiran Govindrao Meshram ...VERSUS.. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Education Society and others =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==- Mr. Shashikant Borkar, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Anand Parchure, Advocate for the R-1 & R-2. Mr. P.D. Kothari, AGP for the R-4. C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK; AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : 13th June, 2011. The University & College Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and holding that the order of termination was just and proper as during the relevant year 1995-1996 there were no admission of students in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd year of B.Sc. and since it was case of closure, the appellant had been paid a sum of three months basic monthly salary of the appellant. Since the order of termination was found to be just and proper, the writ petition filed by the appellant came to be dismissed. The learned Single Judge has held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of Section 92 (3) of the 2 Maharashtra Universities Act did not have any relevance as regards the claim of absorption, made by the appellant in view of the closure. Since there is no merit in the Letters Patent Appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Nikhare