1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.141 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1374 OF 2009 The President, Jai Bharat Shikshan Sanstha and anr. ....Appellants. Vs. The Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai and ors. ....Respondents. Mr. M.S. Topkar for the Appellants. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATE : 18TH JUNE, 2009 PC : 1. By this appeal, the appellant Management challenges the order dated 24.2.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court. 2. The appeal was directed against the order of the Single Judge passed in W.P. No.1374 of 2009, by which the Single Judge of this court has declined permission 2 to amend the written statement filed before the school tribunal. The said appeal relates to the year 2003. It was closed for hearing in the year 2007. But as the Member of the School Tribunal was transferred, the decision could not be given. After the argument of the appellants was over, the amendment in the written statement was sought. Perusal of the application for amendment shows that, by proposed amendment, the appellants want to introduce new pleas as to the legality of the appointment of the appellant before the School Tribunal. According to the management, the Education Officer had given permission for opening of additional standards subject to the condition that staff which will be recruited would be taken from the surplus cell and therefore, the Education Officer did not approve the appointment of the appellant before the tribunal to that post and therefore, his services were terminated. The requirement of taking candidates from the surplus cell has been made in the rules framed under the Act. The Management obviously was aware of 3 the conditions imposed while sanctioning the additional standards. Therefore, if the management with the open eyes appointed the appellant before the tribunal, now it cannot turn around and claim that the appointment is not valid. In our opinion, the amendment sought is meaningless and was tried to be introduced only to harass the appellant before the school tribunal. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere with the order of the School Tribunal. The appeal is therefore, dismissed. 3. Civil Application No.176 of 2009 is accordingly disposed off. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) ( R.S.MOHITE, J.)