1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2006 OF 2010 Digamber s/o Bhagwanrao Ghadge Patil ..PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Mah. & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr B.V. Thombre, Advocate for the petitioner; Mrs A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondents. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 22nd June, 2010 PER COURT : The petitioner, who is a physically handicapped person, came to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Zilla Parishad Primary School at Kallam on 21.1.1998. The petitioner was eventually promoted as the Primary Graduate Teacher and had rendered about 12 years of service. The petitioner, it appears, was absent from duty from 27.11.2001 to 2.5.2006. The ostensible reason which is advanced by the petitioner is that during the said period the petitioner was mentally indisposed and, therefore, could not attend his duties. It appears that thereafter on account of the prolonged absence of the petitioner, the services of the petitioner came to be dismissed and the petitioner has accordingly filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner at Aurangabad. The said appeal i.e. Appeal No.35 of 2006 is said to have been dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner and the order of the Divisional Commissioner is subject-matter of challenge in a revision. No 2 stay is operating in the revision and, therefore, as on today the petitioner is not an employee. The petitioner impugns a communication dated 28.6.2006 by which the petitioner was informed that since he had ceased to be in the employment, the petitioner would not be able to be a member of the union and, therefore, would not be able to attend the activities of the union. The petitioner thus challenges the said communication. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the order of dismissal passed by the respondents is wholly arbitrary and has been passed without following the procedure prescribed by law. Since a revision is pending questioning the said decision, we refrain from making any observations on merit lest the decision of the revision would be adversely affected. It was urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the said communication dated 28.6.2006 deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may be permitted to participate and be a member of the union during the pendency of the revision. 3. The aforesaid submission, according to us, is wholly contrary to the provisions of law. The petitioner has ceased to be an employee and, therefore, cannot be a member of the union. No stay has been granted by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad to the order of dismissal. Unless and until the order of dismissal is set aside, the petitioner cannot be a member of the said union. In that light of the matter, there is no merit in the petition and the petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/wp2006.10