1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 3179 OF 2007 (Jai Janata Education Society and another .v. Presiding Officer 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 A.U. Vaishnav, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri A.M. Deshpande, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Shri V.P. Dhote, Advocate for the respondent No.4. CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. 31ST MARCH, 2008. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. The petition takes exception to the order of the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati passed on 22nd June, 2006 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent No.4 came to be allowed and it was declared that the otherwise termination of the respondent No.4 from the post of Peon under forced resignation is illegal and void. The petitioners were directed to reinstate the respondent No.4 along with the back wages. The respondent No.4 came to be appointed as a peon in the petitioner/School on 31.07.2000. The services of the respondent No.4 was duly approved . The case of the petitioner/management is that the appointment of the respondent No.4 was approved up to 2 April, 2002 and thereafter he worked till 30th June, 2005 without any approval. He gave resignation letter as he was not receiving any salary in the absence of any approval from the respondent Nos.1 to 3 from April, 2002. On the contrary, the contention of the respondent No.4 is that his resignation letter was obtained forcibly. The resignation letter was written in the handwriting of Headmaster and the respondent No.4 was compelled to sign the same. The respondent No.4 specifically denied that the resignation was given voluntarily. The learned School Tribunal, after hearing both the sides, came to the conclusion that the respondent No.4 proved that his services were terminated by forced resignation. In para Nos.20 to 23 of the impugned order, the learned School Tribunal has discussed the evidence in this regard in detail. The learned School Tribunal, in para Nos.14, 15 and 16 also discussed the provisions of Section 7 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1978 under which the resignation is required to be sent by registered post. The learned School Tribunal also considers that the provision of Rule 40 of the MEPS Rules, which 3 mandates permanent employee to leave service only after giving three calender months' notice. Admittedly, in the present case, neither the resignation was sent by registered post nor the three months' notice was given. The learned School Tribunal while arriving at its conclusion also considers the judgments of this Court in the case of Balaleshwar Shikshan Mandal and another .v. Jaywant Bhaguji Gadekar and others (reported in 2003 III CLR 201) and Barshi Education Society .v. Ashok Ganesh Kulkarni and others (reported in 2004(3) Mh.L.J., 587). I do not find any error or perversity in the approach adopted by the learned School Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment. In my opinion, the learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal has considered the case in its proper perspective and, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in my jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is devoid of merits and hence the same is dismissed in limine. JUDGE *rrg.