FARAD FARAD FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. CONTINUATION SHEET NO. CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE SIDE SIDE SIDE DISTRICT DISTRICT DISTRICT : RATNAGIRI : RATNAGIRI : RATNAGIRI WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.3856 OF 2005 PETITION NO.3856 OF 2005 PETITION NO.3856 OF 2005 --------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office ¦ Court’s or Judge’s orders Memoranda of Coram, ¦ appearances, Court’s ¦ orders or directions ¦ & Registrar’s orders ¦ --------------------------------------------------------------- Mr Mandar Limaye i/b Mr A.A. Garge for Petitioners. Ms Ranjana Todankar for Respondent No.1. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH J. DATE : 19TH OCTOBER 2005 P.C. :- 1. The District Court, by a detailed order, has held that the plaintiff No.1 who was an Art Teacher could not have been treated as surplus because of reduction in strength of general workload. The Art Teacher is categorised as special Teacher and therefore, if there is reduction in general workload, the Art Teacher could not have been removed from service. I do not find any patent illegality in the order and therefore, it cannot be disturbed. Petition is rejected. . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Personal Secretary as true copy. . Certified copy expedited. ----------------