AN APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI
Appeal No.	/ 200_
1. The Pune Institute of Engineering	)
& Technology, Shivajinagar,	)    Appellants
Pune 411 005.	)
2. Dr. Ashok Anandrao Ghatol, Director,	)
Pune Institute of Engineering	)
& Technology, Shivajinagar,	)
Pune 411 005.	)
Versus
Shri	B	M	D	,	)
«
age 35 years, occupation - service,	)      Respondent
resident of 1200 Sadashiv Peth,	)
Pune 411 030.	)

The appellants above-named submit this memo of appeal, praying to state as follows:	
(A)That the respondent was appointed at the appellant institute as a Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering, by an order dated and he took over the charge on	.
(B)That the appointment of the respondent was on contractual basis for the period of one year only.

(C) That another appointment-letter was issued on__by which the respondent was appointed for another two years on contractual basis, and as per this appointment order, the respondent was requested to communicate the acceptance of the said appointment before the end of June 200_
(D) That the respondent, however, did not communicate his acceptance of the said appointment order, and since the respondent did not do so, the services of the respondent stood terminated on _
(E) That the respondent also informed the appellant institution that he was not interested in the service and he was, therefore, leaving his job.
(F) That, thereafter, the respondent filed an appeal No. PU/25/ 2003 before the Presiding Officer, Pune University Tribunal, Pune, and the said Learned Tribunal was pleased to allow the said appeal of the respondent, and it was further ordered that the appellants should pay unto the respondent salary including all allowances with effect from being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order, dated passed in the appeal No. PU/25/2003, by the Learned Presiding Officer, Pune University College Tribunal, Pune, the present appellants prefer this appeal against the same on the following amongst the other grounds of objections thereto:

1. That the Learned Lower Court has not followed the proper procedure, and this has resulted into miscarriage of justice.

2. That the orders passed by the Learned Lower Court are violative of the principles of justice, equity and good conscience.

3. That the orders passed by the Learned Lower Court are contrary to the provisions of law and the principles of natural justice.

4. That the Learned Lower Court has failed to consider the evidence on record in a judicious manner.

5. That the findings arrived by the Learned Lower Court are not supported by the evidence on record.

6. That the necessary issues of law and fact have not been framed and answered by the Learned Lower Court.

7. That  the  case was  involving highly technical  issues  requiring interpretation of the orders and the provisions of law, and in the circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the parties to be represented by their lawyers.

8. That the Learned Lower Court has confused the time schedule, and the dates mentioned in the order are wrong.

9. That the Learned Lower Court has misunderstood and misconstrued the facts of the case.

10. That the Learned Lower Court was at error in condoning the delay in preferring the appeal, and the Learned Lower Court has acted in an arbitrary manner while condoning the delay without assigning any ground therefor, and the only excuse that could be put forth by the Learned Lower Court is "the circumstances in the present case are such that one feels that delay in preferring the appeal be condoned" is nothing but mockery of justice, and, hence, the appeal was wrongly entertained.

11. That the Learned Lower Court has not framed proper issues.

12. That the Learned Lower Court has framed the issues in a totally defective manner.

13. That the Learned Lower Court once having held that the respondent had resigned orally, it was erroneous on the part of the Tribunal again to hold that his services were not properly terminated.

14. That the Learned Lower Court was at error in holding that there was no communication from the appellants unto the respondent to the effect that his oral resignation was accepted.

15. That the Learned Lower Court was at error in holding that any acceptance was  required  to  be  issued  in  case  of a  unilateral unconditional resignation by a Lecturer on probation.

16. That the Learned Lower Court was at error in holding that the explanation offered by the Director of the appellant No. 1 was not convincing without assigning any grounds for holding so.

17. That the Learned Lower Court has misconstrued the documents at Exhibit 10/5, and, in fact, the Learned Lower Court has lost sight of its evidentiary value.

18. That the Learned Lower Court ought to have held that the Exhibits 10/5 and 10/6 were the documents made in accordance with the course of business of an office, and hence, ipso facto those   were relevant.

19. That there was no evidence to justify the questioning of authenticity or correctness of exhibits 10/5 and 10/6, which were made by two high dignitaries other than the Director of the institution.

20. That the Learned Lower Court has arrived at a conclusion that the respondent must not have given resignation in the absence of any positive evidence to that effect led by the respondent.

21. That  the  Learned  Lower  Court  ought  to  have  held  that  the communicated, dated of the respondent was an afterthought prompted by his malicious design to harass the management of the institute.

22. That the conclusion of the Learned Lower Court that oral resignation cannot be legal itself is illegal.

23. That the Learned Lower Court ought to have held that the burden did heavily lie on the respondent to prove his case, and in the absence of any convincing evidence led by the respondent, there was no question of the Learned Lower Court's analysing the appellant's evidence and giving all the benefits of doubt to the respondent.

24. That the Learned Lower Court has not at all considered the case of these appellants, and it was the case of these appellants that the respondent was working on contractual basis and in the absence of an extension, there should be no automatic continuation of the respondent.

25. That the Learned Lower Court has not even considered the case made out by these appellants that a contractual appointment, after its expiration, required a mutual fresh contract for its continuation, and unless that was shown, alleged or pleaded, here was no question of the Learned Lower Court's substituting the one for the parties.

26. That the Learned Lower Court has ignored the fact that in the case of contractual fixed-time of appointment, absence of agreement of extension itself would amount to termination of services requiring and needing no notices, orders, or resignations whatsoever. 

27. That the case of the appellants that the respondent was never confirmed in service was accepted and confirmed by the respondent himself, and yet its effects were not considered by the Learned Lower Court, which is really paradoxical and, therefore, bad in law.

28. That the case of the appellants was supported by the documentary evidence on record as well as the independent officers of the appellants in their course of office maintaining records and reports, while all that what the respondent was relying upon was his own
interested version of the case, and hence, the evidence of the appellants merited absolute recognition.

29. That the very fact that academic or administrative performance of the respondent was very weak, and there were lots of complaints against him itself would show as to why the respondent must have orally resigned.

30. That taking into account the performance of the respondent, the Learned Lower Court ought to have properly inferred the motives on the part of the respondent to harass the management.

31. That the appellants submitted by way of affidavits and otherwise detailed events and convincing evidence, but the Learned Lower Court has not cared even to discuss any part of the evidence.

32. That the Learned Lower Court ought to have considered the legitimate effects of the fact that the respondent had gone to the length of producing false evidence, particularly the letter at Exhibit No. 2.

33. That the Learned Lower Court ought to have upheld the contention of these appellants, which was not only legal but also judicious.

34. That the decision of the Learned Lower Court is dated_while its certified copy was applied for on the same was delivered the same day, and hence, this appeal filed today is well within limitation.

35. That the proper court-fee is paid herewith.

36. That the appellants, therefore, pray that -
(A) This appeal be kindly allowed;
(B)The record and proceedings in the appeal No. PU/25/2003, by the Learned Presiding Officer, Pune University College Tribunal, Pune, be called for;
(C)The judgment and order passed in the said appeal be set aside and quashed; and

(D) Any other orders in the interest of justice be kindly passed, for which act of grace and favour, these appellants as bounden in duty shall ever pray.
                                                                                                                  Sd/- AAG 
                                                                                                               APPELLANTS

                  Sd/-   xXx 
ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS