G.M. Lodha, J.
1. We have heard Mr. Calla, Government Advocate at length and have also perused the judgment dated 15-10-1974.
2. Since we are in agreement with the finding of the learned Single Judge, it is not necessary to mention the entire facts again.
3. The only point pressed by Mr. Calla is that the respondent Gopinath Gaur was removed from service by the private management of the Johri Multipurpose Higher Secondary School before it was taken over by the State. The learned Single Judge in the detailed comprehensive judgment has held that there was no termination order of Mr. Gaur. Mr. Calla could not contest this finding seriously and all that he argued was that though there was no written order of termination it must be presumed so because in the list which was given by the management to the State at the time of transfer, the Management did not mention the name of this particular teacher in it. Mr. Calla further pointed out that the earlier history narrated in the judgment shows that in connection with the grant of leave there was some dispute and the private management of the School refused to grant leave and further refused to allow to join after the period which was utilised by the respondent as leave which was never granted. From this, Mr. Calla wants us to infer that the termination by the Management must be presumed. We are unable to accept this contention of Mr. Calla. It is difficult to presume the service of an employee is terminated without there being my proper order in writing, merely because leave was refused and not granted. We are in agreement with the finding of the learned Single Judge that the respondent continued to be in service on the date the Management of the School was taken over by the State. We are further in agreement with the finding of the learned Single Judge that since the State expressly took upon the responsibility of screening the staff and unless found unsuitable, to continue their services, it was the legal duty of the State Authorities to screen the respondent Shri Gaur and then to decide that he should continue in service or not.
4. The direction given by the learned Single Judge is limited to this extent that Shri Gaur should be got screened and if found suitable he may be re-instated retrospectively but no wages should be paid for this period.
5. It is common ground now that Shri Gaur has attainted superannuation age on 15-8-1977 during the pendency of this appeal. Obviously in view of this there cannot be any question of re-instatement in service. However, Mr. Mridul has rightly pointed out that if he is found suitable on screening and an order is passed for his re-instatement, notionally from the date mentioned in the judgments of the learned Single Judge, then he may be able to obtain the pensionary benefits.
6. Consequently we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed with the above observations. There is no order as to costs.