( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Letters Patent Appeal No. 5 of 2010 (Against the order dated 14-12-2009 in Writ Petition No. 7677/2009 ) 1. Beed Zilla Ustod Kamgar Vikas Mandal, Kaij, Taluka : Kaij, Dist. Beed, Through its President, Uddhavrao Manikrao Karad, Aged : 36 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Dharur Road, Kaij, Taluka : Kaij, Dist. Beed. 2. Sane Guruji Nivasi Vidyalaya, Kaij, Taluka : Kaij, Dist. Beed, Through its Head Master, Smt. Kavita Narisingrao Gitte, Aged : 35 years, Occupation : Service, .. Appellants R/o. Bhavani Galli, Kaij, (Original Taluka : Kaij, Dist. Beed. petitioners) versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. ( 2 ) 2. The Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, C/o. Balasaheb Pawar Sakhar Bhavan, IVth Floor, Mondha Road, Aurangabad. 3. The Special District Social Welfare Officer, Beed, C/o. Near Gir Hospital, Taluka & District : Beed. 4. Smt. Savitra Vishwambhar Jadhav, Aged : 28 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Gathal Galli, Khadakpura, .. Respondents Durpkar Wada, Ambejogai, (Original Taluka : Ambejogai, respondents) District : Beed. ......................... Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Advocate, holding for Mr. P.S. Dighe, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. D.R. Korde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3. ......................... W I T H ( 3 ) Letters Patent Appeal No. 6 of 2010 (Against the order dated 14-12-2009 in Writ Petition No. 7678/2009 ) 1. Beed Zilla Ustod Kamgar Vikas Mandal, Kaij, Taluka : Kaij, Dist. Beed, Through its President, Uddhavrao Manikrao Karad, Aged : 36 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Dharur Road, Kaij, Taluka : Kaij, Dist. Beed. 2. Sane Guruji Nivasi Vidyalaya, Kaij, Taluka : Kaij, Dist. Beed, Through its Head Master, Smt. Kavita Narisingrao Gitte, Aged : 35 years, Occupation : Service, .. Appellants R/o. Bhavani Galli, Kaij, (Original Taluka : Kaij, Dist. Beed. petitioners) versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, C/o. Balasaheb Pawar Sakhar Bhavan, IVth Floor, Mondha Road, Aurangabad. ( 4 ) 3. The Special District Social Welfare Officer, Beed, C/o. Near Gir Hospital, Taluka & District : Beed. 4. Smt. Suvarna Laxmanrao Sirsath, Aged : 26 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Near Police Station, .. Respondents Main Road, Kaij, (Original Taluka : Kaij, Dist. Beed. respondents) ....................... Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Advocate, holding for Mr. P.S. Dighe, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. P.P. More, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3. ........................ CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 15TH JANUARY 2010 COURT'S ORDER (Per A.P. Deshpande, J.) : 1. The appellant no.1 is a Society and a Public Trust which administers and manages Ashram School, by name, Sane Guruji Nivasi Vidyalaya, Kaij. The school is impleaded as appellant no.2, through the Head Master. The respondent no.4 ( 5 ) in both the appeals came to be appointed as Assistant Teachers in the said school, with effect from and under order dated 20th May 2005. The said appointment is shown to be a temporary appointment for one academic session i.e. up to 30th April 2006. It is the case of the appellant, that before commencement of the next academic session i.e. 2006-07, the appellants issued fresh advertisement. The present respondent no.4 yet again applied in response to the advertisement issued for the second time. On the second occasion, as well, the respondent no.4 were selected for being appointed and this second appointment order also makes appointment of respondent no.4, yet again for a period of one academic session. 2. After termination of service of the respondent no.4, both the respondents filed an appeal before the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, under the Ashram School Code, contending that their appointment was against a clear vacancy and a permanent post and hence on satisfactory completion of 2 years service, they have attained permanency as provided under the Code. The Divisional Social Welfare Officer allowed the appeal and directed the appellants to reinstate the respondent no.4 as Assistant Teachers, together with back wages and continuity of service. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, the present appellants initially filed review petitions and on rejection of review petitions, chose to file Writ ( 6 ) Petitions, which came to be heard and decided by the learned Single Judge of this court. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petitions giving rise to filing of these Letter Patent Appeals. 3. The only ground, that was seriously urged before the learned Single Judge of this court, was that at no point of time the appellants were served with any notice in the appeal filed by the respondent no.4 before the Divisional Social Welfare Officer and hence the order passed by the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, allowing the appeal, stands vitiated, being in breach of principles of natural justice. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3 has made available for our perusal, the original record of the appeal before the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, so also, the outward register maintained in regular course of business by the office, indicating dispatch of various letters from time to time. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3 has invited our attention to the copy of the review petition filed by the present appellants before the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, wherein the following averments are made. The application is in Marathi and if freely ( 7 ) translated, the averments made in the review petition would read thus : " In Appeal No. ..../2007, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 in the appeal (present appellants) were not supplied copy of appeal memo despite repeated demands made to the appellant. The applicants received the notice of hearing of the appeal belatedly and hence they could not remain present at the time of hearing. As such, no explanation could be submitted on behalf of the original respondent nos.1 and 2 and factual position could not be put forth. " From the averments made in the review petitions, it is crystal clear that the present appellants were aware about pendency of the appeals before the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, filed by the respondent no.4 and hence, it is stated that despite repeated demand, of copy of memo of appeal from the appellants (before the Divisional Social Welfare Officer), the same was not supplied. It can also be seen that there is no dispute about non-receipt of notice, but the grievance is that the notice was received after the date of hearing. No particulars in that regard are furnished. ( 8 ) The present appellants have totally deviated from the stand taken by them while filing the review petitions. In the Writ Petitions, bald allegation is made that petitioners were not aware about the appeal being filed by the respondent no.4 and were at no point of time served with a notice. Copies of notices were placed on record of the Writ Petitions, by the Divisional Social Welfare Officer. Before us, not only notices are made available for perusal, but even original outward register, which enters every outward dispatch, is produced for perusal. On perusal of the record of the appeal, especially the notices and the outward register, we have no iota of doubt that on four occasions notices were issued to the present appellants. The first two notices were issued by Post, by the office of the Divisional Social Welfare Officer. The first notice sent by Post is dated 16-6-2007, dispatched on 18th June 2007. The appeal was heard finally on 26th February 2008. Thus, if the notice was actually issued on 16-6-2007, it can safely be presumed to have been received by the present appellants within a reasonable period. The appellant does not dispute the fact that the name and the address shown in the notice is correct. The second notice is issued by Post on 7-9-2007 and thereafter the appellants were twice served by Humdast by a Peon from the office vide notice dated 11-12-2007 and 21-2-2007. The Peon who claims to have served the notice has also given in writing, in that regard, to the Divisional Social Welfare Officer. ( 9 ) 6. The learned Single Judge has rightly concluded that the notice of appeal was served on the appellants. Even though acknowledgments are not available with the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, in regard to receipt of notices by the appellant, a presumption is always available under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872, that if during ordinary course of business, a letter is dispatched by Post to a person on correct address, he has received the same. We are also of the view that the present appellants have completely deviated and departed from the statements made in the review petitions. With a risk of repetition, we reiterate that initially grievance sought to be made in the review petition, was that despite repeated demand for supply of copy of memo of appeal, the same was not supplied to the appellant and that notice of hearing was received after date of hearing and hence, the appellants could not remain present. Before this court, the case sought to be made out is that the appellants were not aware about pendency of any appeal and they were never noticed. The said case sought to be made out by the appellants stands falsified, not only from the averments made in the review petition but also from the copies of notices placed on record for perusal by the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, so also, from the original outward register entries which provides clear evidence to the court. ( 10 ) 7. For the aforesaid reasons, we see no illegality committed by the learned Single Judge in rejecting the Writ Petitions. 8. There is no merit in these appeals and hence the appeals are dismissed. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( A.P. DESHPANDE ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/lpa5etc