[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION L.P.A.NO.415 OF 2008 IN W.P.NO.2583 OF 2008 Madhav Rajaram Gavai ..Appellant Vs. Gokhale Education Society and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr.S.G.Kudale for Appellant Ms.M.P.Thakur AGP for Respondent No.3 Mr.P.M.Palshikar for Respondent No.2 Mr.V.S.Talkute for Respondent No.1 .... CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : MARCH 13, 2009 DATE : MARCH 13, 2009 DATE : MARCH 13, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Appellant has challenged the order dated 15.4.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2583 of 2008 whereby the petition filed by the Petitioner impugning the decision of the Tribunal, came to be dismissed. [-2-] 3. It is the case of the Appellant who is the original Petitioner that he was appointed as Principal on a probation for a period of two years w.e.f. 27.2.2003 but from 5.2.2005, his services were terminated. Thereafter, he was reappointed on 1.3.2005, and therefore, his reappointment in substance, amounts to continuation of the Appellant in service and therefore, the Appellant-petitioner having completed the probation period, his services ought to have been confirmed against the said post. 4. Mr.Kudale, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-petitioner drew our attention to the Statute of University of Bombay which governs the service conditions of the Appellant as formulated under Section 42 of the Bombay University Act, 1974 and particularly, has referred to Statute 418 relating to probation and confirmation and submitted that sub-clause (3) of the Statute 418 has been overlooked by the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge for the purpose that the Appellant was reappointed on probation in the same cadre and therefore, the period spent by him on probation during the previous appointment ought to have been counted towards the period of probation [-3-] and for the said reason, the Appellant was entitled to annual increment, continuation of break in service and confirmation. 5. We find that the Section 418 of the Statute on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the Appellant, governs cases of those teachers whose services have been terminated on the ground of reduction in workload or abolition of the post, which is not the case in so far as it relates to appointment and termination of the Appellant. 6. Therefore, we do not find that the learned Single Judge has committed any error or illegality in upholding the decision of the Tribunal after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances on record and therefore, there is no merit in the Letters Patent Appeal and the same is dismissed. [J.N.PATEL, J.] [J.N.PATEL, J.] [J.N.PATEL, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]