:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1049 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1049 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1049 OF 2009 Satywan Daji Sartape ..Petitioner versus Katphal Education Society, Solapur & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. P. P. Killedar for the Petitioner. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 18TH MARCH, 2009 DATE : 18TH MARCH, 2009 DATE : 18TH MARCH, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . The petitioner has challenged the Order of the Tribunal dated 17.10.2007 dismissing his Appeal against his alleged termination. 2. The petitioner was working as a peon with the respondents. According to him the management terminated his services but wrongly showed that he has resigned from services. He therefore preferred an Appeal before the School Tribunal. The School Tribunal has found after hearing the management that though the petitioner was said to have been suffering from schizophrenia at some stage, the :2: resignation is not on account of the said illness. The Tribunal has found that the petitioner resigned his services on 1.4.2002 in his own handwriting and it was confirmed before the Education Officer on 7.4.2002. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the respondents is obviously not tenable because according to them the petitioner had earlier resigned in 2000. He submitted that it is not possible for the person to resign in 2000 and then again in 2002. The submission cannot be accepted. Because there appear to be two resignations, it cannot be said that there is no resignation at all. The Tribunal has rendered a finding that the petitioner resigned in the year 2002 and the respondents accepted that resignation, though there is a reference to the earlier resignation. Since the finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner resigned in the year 2002 is based on cogent material and is not vitiated by any perversity, the impugned order is not liable to be interfered with. There is no merit in this petition, which is hereby dismissed. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)