1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No 6519/2006 Ramesh Keshao Bhure and others ..vs.. Paoni Shikshan Sanstha and others -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 7 th February, 2008 1. Heard Mr. Narnaware, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Jibhkate, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. The petitioner takes exception to the common order dated 27.02.2002 passed by Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur in Appeal No. 27/94, 28/94, 29/94 whereunder, the petitioners' individual appeals came to be dismissed. It was the case of the petitioners that they were appointed on 20.07.1988, 01.12.1989 and 03.07.1989 respectively and their services came to be orally terminated on 05.07.1993. 3. The contention of the petitioners before the School Tribunal that their services could not have been terminated though they were untrained teacher inasmuch as the Government, from time to time issued the resolutions 2 extending time to acquire the prescribed qualification. 4. The School Tribunal dismissed the appeals on the ground that the petitioners could not prove that the otherwise termination order is illegal, improper and unjustified. This finding was recorded in view of the fact that the petitioners were untrained teachers and did not acquire qualification prescribed under the Rules. 5. The School Tribunal also framed issue regarding limitation and held that the petitioners' appeals are not within the limitation inasmuch as otherwise termination was effected on 05.07.1993 and the appeals came to be filed on 25.01.1994 i.e. beyond the period of limitation. The petitioners neither explained this delay nor filed any application for condoantion of delay before the School Tribunal. The School Tribunal, therefore, on merit as well as on the ground of limitation dismissed the petitioners' appeal. 6. Be that as it may, even the order impugned in this petition was passed on 27.02.2002. The petitioners, however, approached this Court by way of filing this petition on 3 29.09.2006 i.e. after four years. This delay is also not explained in the petition. 7. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order in exercise of my jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE kahale