1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1695 OF 2011 (Kishor Pundlik Paulkar vs. Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri M.L. Vairagade, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri R. Ghoge, Advocate for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. -------- CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATED : JUNE 23, 2011 This petition takes exception to the order dated 2/8/2010 passed by the University and College Tribunal, Nagpur whereby the Appeal filed by the petitioner being Appeal No. A-9/2007 came to be dismissed. The said Appeal was filed by the petitioner against the alleged oral termination, which had taken place on 10/9/2007. It was the case of the respondent no.2 Management that the petitioner 2 herein, who was the appellant before the Tribunal, had resigned on 20/2/2005 by a letter, which he had submitted to the Principal of the same date, which in turn was submitted to the President of the respondent Society and the same was kept before the Managing Committee for consideration and was accepted on 29/3/2005. The respondent no.2 Management had also produced the original muster roll wherein the petitioner’s name was not appearing. The respondent no.2 Management had also produced the salary slips showing the salary paid by one Watsugulma Urban Cooperative Society to the petitioner in the year 2005-06 and had also produced the statement of accounts wherein the salary paid to the petitioner was appearing. Though it was the case of the petitioner that he continued to be in service and in support of the said case, he had produced a xerox copy of an alleged muster roll wherein his name was appearing, the Tribunal on consideration of the material on record came to a conclusion that in view of the fact that the petitioner had in fact resigned, which was supported by the material produced by the 3 respondent no.2 Management, it did not find any reason to grant the relief claimed by the petitioner in Appeal. Having perused the reasons mentioned by the Tribunal, there is no illegality or infirmity found in the impugned order. No case for interference is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE khj