1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.398 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2768 OF 2008 (Bharatiya Sewa Sadan and another vs. Ganpat Vishwambhar Ambilwade and others) ___________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : APRIL 9, 2009 Heard Shri Khapre, learned Counsel for the appellants, the respondent no.1 in person and Shri Sonak, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.2. The letters patent appeal is directed against the order dated 29.9.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby writ petition filed by the appellants against the order of the School Tribunal came to be rejected. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties and respondent no.1 in person and perused the orders of the School Tribunal as well as learned Single Judge. It is not in dispute that there are various litigations 2 pending between the appellants and respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 has filed proceedings against the appellants before the Authorities of the Education Department as well as writ petitions in this Court seeking various directions against the appellants. The basic dispute is whether the application dated 31.1.2005 alleged to have been given by the respondent no.1 is genuine one and whether same was given voluntarily. The finding recorded by the School Tribunal clearly shows that evidence on record demonstrates that the said application alleged to have been submitted by the respondent no.1 was not voluntary and was obtained by the appellants forcefully. If the application itself was not voluntary, in that event, it hardly matters whether application was under Section 7 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act or for voluntary retirement under the Government Resolution. The learned Single Judge has observed that the alleged application, if treated as resignation under Section 7 of the said Act, in that case, procedure stipulated under Section 7 of the said Act was not followed and, therefore, did not interfere in the writ petition filed by the appellant Management. In the instant case, the School Tribunal 3 has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent no.1 and the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant Management. As we have already observed hereinabove, on the basis of facts and circumstances on record, if it is already concluded by the School Tribunal that the application in question was not voluntary, in that event, action of the appellant Management treating the same as application for voluntary retirement, in our view, will not give legitimacy to the said application. Even otherwise, the learned Single Judge also considered the issue in view of provisions of Section 7 of the said Act and concluded in favour of the respondent no.1. It is in these peculiar facts and circumstances, the decision of this Court in Barshi Education Society vs. Ashok Ganesh Kulkarni and others (2004 (5) Bom. C.R. 772), relied by the learned Counsel for the appellants, in our view, does not support the case of the appellants. The letters patent appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE khj