1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application (Review) No. 104/2010 in Writ Petition No. 4305/2007 Public Education Society, Murtuzapur, through its President vs. Abdul Wahid s/o Abdul Hamid and others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. CORAM : A.P.LAVANDE,J DATE : 09.04.2010 Heard Mr. S. Raisuddin, learned counsel for the applicant. By this application the applicant seeks review of the order dated 27/08/2008 by which Writ Petition No. 4305/2007 filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The applicant filed the above referred writ petition challenging the order dated 17.7.2007 passed by the School Tribunal, Amravati in Appeal No. 80/2003 allowing the appeal filed by the respondent no.1 under Section 9 of MEPS Act. The respondent no.1 who was appointed with effect from 1.7.1998 as a peon in the School run by the petitioner was not allowed to join his duties with effect from 17.6.2003 in spite of the efforts on his part. He challenged his termination before the School Tribunal which was allowed by the Judgment passed by the School Tribunal. The writ petition 2` preferred against the said order filed by the applicant was dismissed by order dated 27.8.2008. According to Mr. Raisuddin, the learned counsel for the applicant the appeal preferred by the respondent no.1 was barred by limitation and there was no need to hold inquiry since respondent no.1 chose to remain absent. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and having perused the record, I find no ground to review the order. The record discloses that the petitioner did not allow the respondent no.1 to join his duties and only thereafter he filed appeal. Therefore, appeal filed by him can not be said to be time barred. Insofar as non holding of inquiry is concerned, I find myself unable to agree with the learned counsel for the applicant that since respondent no.1 chose to remain absent there was no need of inquiry. The impugned order does not disclose any error apparent on the face of record. Hence, the application is dismissed. JUDGE patle 3`