(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1521 OF 2010 1. Late Nagnath Deoji Motewar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Degloor, Through its President. 2. Pragati Primary School, Line Galli, Degloor, District : Nanded, Through its Headmaster. .. Petitioners versus 1. Anita Vyankatrao Kadam, Age : 25 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. Biloli, Taluka : Mukhed, District : Nanded. 2. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded, District : Nanded. 3. Nitin Nagendra Hadole, Age : 24 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Pragati Primary School, Line Galli, Degloor, District : Nanded. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Mr. A.V. Patil, Advocate, holding for Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. V.V. Bhavthankar, Advocate, holding for Mr. S.G. Rudrawar, Advocate, for respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 served (Absent). Mr. S.R. Kolhare, Advocate, for respondent no.3. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 3RD MARCH 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. A.V. Patil, holding for Adv. Mr. V.D. Gunale, for the petitioners; Adv. Mr. V.V. Bhavthankar, holding for Adv. Mr. S.G. Rudrawar, for respondent no.1, and Adv. Mr. S.R. Kolhare, for respondent no.3. Nobody appears for respondent no.2 though duly served. 2. The School Tribunal has found the termination of service of respondent no.1 unsustainable as it was without serving order of termination and also there was nothing to show that her performance during probation was unsatisfactory. (3) 3. Adv. Mr. Patil, appearing for the petitioners / management has contended that when order of termination was attempted to be served, it was refused and hence it was required to be sent by R.P.A.D. He further points out that as respondent no.1 was only a Shikshan Sevak and was terminated before completion of period of 3 years, there was no ground for holding departmental inquiry. Lastly it is urged that the respondent no.3 came to be validly appointed and finding of School Tribunal about his appointment being illegal, is unsustainable. 4. Adv. Mr. Bhavathankar, appearing for respondent no. 1, has supported the impugned order. 5. After hearing respective Counsel, I am satisfied that there was no material produced before the School Tribunal to prove alleged refusal of termination order by respondent no.1. Similarly, there is nothing on record to show that her performance during initial service of 3 years was unsatisfactory or then the same was communicated to her at any point of time. In this situation, legality or otherwise of appointment of respondent no.3 is not very relevant. The management cannot ask respondent no.1 and respondent no.3 to fight with each other. (4) 6. The affidavit of Headmaster produced before the School Tribunal was not accepted by the School Tribunal as sufficient proof of refusal as it noticed that after alleged refusal, the order was not forwarded forthwith. Application of mind by the School Tribunal cannot be said to be either erroneous or perverse. 7. I find that no case is made out warranting interference in this jurisdiction. 8. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1521