1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 767 OF 2008 (Nandu Dadarao Sakhare .v. Payoshni Shikshan Sanstha and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri S.T. Harkare, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri A.M. Deshpande, AGP for the respondent No.3. CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. 30TH JULY, 2008. Heard Shri S.T. Harkare, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Shri A.M. Deshpande, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3. None appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who was working as a Peon, worked from the year 1994 till 2005 and as such worked almost for 11 years. He then urged that the Tribunal committed an error in not considering the period of service rendered by him for such long number of years. He then argued that the persons who were subsequently appointed being juniors could have been terminated rather than the petitioner. This aspect has not been considered by the Tribunal. Alternatively, he submits 2 that he would make representation to the Education Officer praying for declaring him surplus or accommodating in any other school, he having rendered long number of years in service and if such a representation is sympathetically considered, he can save the axe of unemployment. This submission is opposed by Shri A.M. Deshpande, the learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3. The Tribunal has recorded a finding and in my opinion has rightly held that the petitioner has accepted the initial employment on the condition, namely, subject to the decision of the Writ Petition filed by one Shri Tukaram Ghate. Thus, the employment of the petitioner was purely on the said condition. Now the said point having been decided adverse to the interest of the petitioner, no relief can be granted to him and that is why the Tribunal turned down his appeal. I do not find any fault with the reasoning furnished by the Tribunal for dismissing the appeal. However, it cannot be forgotten that the petitioner has rendered long 11 years of service as a Peon and must have now the responsibility is of the family and children. In view of this, I make the following order. The Writ Petition is partly allowed. The 3 impugned order passed by the learned School Tribunal is confirmed. The petitioner is granted liberty to make an application or representation to the Education Officer as well as the management for either declaring him surplus or find out some other way to accommodate him in any other school in the same post, if otherwise possible and permissible in law. The Education Officer shall consider such application sympathetically but within the parameters of law. The representation shall be made within four weeks from today by the petitioner and the Education Officer shall decide the same within ten weeks therefrom. Writ Petition is disposed of as such with no order as to costs. Steno copy of this order, duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar, be furnished to the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, on payment of usual charges, to act upon. JUDGE *rrg.