JUDGMENT : By this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged judgment and order dated 16-07-2016, passed by the School Tribunal, Amravati, whereby the appeal filed by petitioner challenging order dated 24-07-2015, issued by respondent no.2, has not been interferred with. By the said order, the respondent no.2 held that the petitioner was relieved from his service as teacher in the school run by the respondent no.1 Management having abandoning the service under Rule 16(3) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules, 1981 (for short, 'Rules'). 2. The petitioner working as a Peon in the school run by respondent no.1. On 02-02-2005, the petitioner applied for leave on the ground of ill-health. On 26-03-2005, the respondent no.2 Headmaster sent a communication to the petitioner asking him to submit medical certificate in support of his application for grant of leave on medical ground. In response to the same, on 29-09-2005, the petitioner sent a letter along with medical certificate to the respondent no.2. In the medical certificate, it was certified that the petitioner was suffering from GERD with Anemia and Asthmatic Bronchitis with Anemia. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner did not care to report to the school or to send any communication to the Headmaster or the Management of the school. On 28-11-2014, the respondent no.2 Headmaster sent a communication to the petitioner regarding continuous absence since 02-02-2005. It was stated in this letter that since the petitioner had been continuously absent since 02-02-2005, he was required to submit explanation within a period of three days why it was not to be deemed that he had voluntarily abandoned service under Rule 16(3) of the aforesaid Rules. 4. In response to the said letter, the petitioner sent a letter dated 10-12-2014 to the respondent no.2 Headmaster stating that he had been suffering from ill health since 02-02-2005, and that now he was fit to join duty and further that he would present himself physically fit for reporting on 02-01-2015. On 02-01-2015, the petitioner submitted a joining letter which was endorsed by the respondent no.2 Headmaster. It was stated that he had joined as a Peon at 10.30 am, on the said day. On 02-01-2015, the petitioner submitted a joining letter which was endorsed by the respondent no.2 Headmaster. It was stated that he had joined as a Peon at 10.30 am, on the said day. The respondent no.2 Headmaster then sent a communication dated 09-01-2015 to the respondent no.3 Education Officer stating that since the service of the petitioner had not been terminated although he had remained absent from 02-02-2005 to 01-01-2015, the petitioner had been permitted to join the duty on the post of Peon from 02-01-2015 and in that regard the report was being submitted by way of said communication. A copy of the said communication was marked to the respondent no.1 Management. Thereafter, by letter dated 24-07-2015, respondent no.2 Headmaster informed the petitioner that since he had remained absent from duty for more than 5 years continuously, it was deemed that he had voluntarily left the service under Rule 16(3) of the said Rules. It is this communication that was made subject matter of challenge by the petitioner by filing Appeal No.55 of 2015 before the School Tribunal, Amravati. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that since he had applied for leave, along with medical certificate in the year 2005, even if he reported for duty in the year 2015, it could not be said that he had abandoned his service under Rule 16(3) of the aforesaid Rules. 5. By the impugned order dated 16-07-2016, passed by the School Tribunal, it has been held that the facts at worst demonstrated that there was a mistake committed by respondent no.2 Headmaster in the present case while entertaining communication and issuing letters to the petitioner. It was found that respondent no.1 Management could not be held responsible for continuing the petitioner in service due to the mistake of the headmaster, particularly when Rule 16(3) of the said Rules was absolutely clear as regards the abandonment of service. On this basis, the School Tribunal did not find any fault with the letter dated 24-07-2015, issued by the respondent no.2. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 6. Mr. Jagirdar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that a proper reading of Rule 16 particularly sub-rules (1), (2) and (3) would show that the present case did not fall within the ambit of abandonment of service by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 6. Mr. Jagirdar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that a proper reading of Rule 16 particularly sub-rules (1), (2) and (3) would show that the present case did not fall within the ambit of abandonment of service by the petitioner. It was submitted that Sub-rule (3) of Rule 16 specifically provided that if the employee failed to apply for leave within seven days from the date of absence, it shall be treated as breach of discipline and he shall be liable for suitable disciplinary action after due inquiry and secondly that a permanent employee who remained absent from duty without leave continuously for a period exceeding three years or more, he shall be deemed to have voluntarily abandoned his services. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, since the petitioner had applied for leave on 02-02-2005 and thereafter he had submitted the medical certificate along with his letter dated 29-09-2005, his remaining absence from duty for more than 9 years could not be said to be leave without permission and that once such an application and documents were placed on record even, if the petitioner did not report for duty for more than 9 years, it could not be said to be a case of abandonment of service. It was submitted that when the petitioner was fit for joining duties, he had promptly reported on 02-01-2015 and when the respondent no.2 Headmaster had permitted him to join on the said post of Peon, Rule 16(3) of the aforesaid Rules did not apply in the facts of the case. On this basis, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of the Tribunal deserved to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Anjan De, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2 i.e. Management and the Headmaster of the school submitted that the present case was a case of abandonment of service, because even according to the documents placed on record by the petitioner, it was found that the petitioner had been absent from duty from 02-02-2005 to 02-01-2015. Anjan De, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2 i.e. Management and the Headmaster of the school submitted that the present case was a case of abandonment of service, because even according to the documents placed on record by the petitioner, it was found that the petitioner had been absent from duty from 02-02-2005 to 02-01-2015. It was submitted that merely submitting an application for leave would not be enough for the petitioner to escape the consequences provided in Rule 16(3) of the said Rules because an application for grant of leave submitted by the petitioner required approval from the Management and the Headmaster and in the absence of the same, due to failure of the petitioner to report for duty for almost a decade clearly invited the consequence contemplated under Rule 16(3) of the said Rules. It was submitted that the Tribunal correctly appreciated the facts of the present case while rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. 8. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The relevant portion of Rule 16 of the aforesaid Rules reads as under :- “16. Leave.- (1) Leave shall not be claimed as a matter of right. Discretion to grant, refuse or cancel leave (other than casual leave) is reserved- (i) in the case of the teaching and non-teaching staff (other than the Head), with the School Committee and (ii) in the case of the Head, with the Management. (2) An application for leave other than casual leave or extension of leave or to proceed on leave after vacation shall ordinarily be made in good time before the date from which the leave or its extension is sought. Even in exceptional cases where it is not possible to apply beforehand because of circumstances beyond the control of the employee, the application shall be made within 7 days from the date of absence. A nonpermanent employee shall be deemed to have abandoned his service if he fails to apply for leave within seven days from the date of absence. (3) In the case of a permanent employee who, without sufficient cause, fails to apply for leave within 7 days from the date of absence, it shall be treated as breach of discipline and he shall be liable for suitable disciplinary action after due inquiry. (3) In the case of a permanent employee who, without sufficient cause, fails to apply for leave within 7 days from the date of absence, it shall be treated as breach of discipline and he shall be liable for suitable disciplinary action after due inquiry. A permanent employee who is absent from duty [without leave continuously for a period exceeding three years] or more, shall be deemed to have voluntarily abandoned his services.” 9. A perusal of the above quoted Rule shows that the employee cannot claim leave as a matter of right. Grant, refusal or cancellation of leave is within the discretion of the Management and the Head of the school as the case may be. Rule 16(3) states that if a permanent employee fails to apply for leave within 7 days from the date of absence or without sufficient cause remains absent, it would be treated as breach of discipline and said an employee would be liable for disciplinary action. Second part of Rule 16 of sub-rule (3) provides that if a permanent employee who remains absent from duty without leave continuously for a period exceeding three years or more, he shall be deemed to have voluntarily abandoned his services. 10. The facts of the present case show that the petitioner submitted an application on 02-02-2005, seeking leave on health ground. In response to the same, respondent no.2 Headmaster asked for medical certificate in support of such application. The petitioner sent a letter dated 29-09-2005, including medical certificate showing that he was suffering from ailments like GERD with Anemia and Asthmatic Bronchitis with Anemia. There was no further exchange of communication between the parties till the year 2014. The petitioner did not care to report for duty or to enquire as to whether the application for leave had been approved by the Management/school. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 also did not issue any communication to the petitioner. There is no document on record to show that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 accepted the medical certificate submitted by the petitioner or that there was any communication from their side signifying approval of leave of the petitioner and if so for a specific period. 11. 1 and 2 also did not issue any communication to the petitioner. There is no document on record to show that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 accepted the medical certificate submitted by the petitioner or that there was any communication from their side signifying approval of leave of the petitioner and if so for a specific period. 11. It was only on 28-11-2014 that the respondent No.2 Headmaster sent a letter to the petitioner asking for an explanation within 3 days as to why it should not be held that the petitioner had abandoned service under Rule 16(3) of the said Rules. In the first place the said communication from the respondent no.2 Headmaster was not at all necessary in the facts of the present case, but it seems that the respondent no.2 Headmaster by mistake issued the communication. In any case issuance of the said communication would not take the petitioner out of the clutches of the second part of Rule 16 of the said Rules. In the absence of any document or material to show that the application for leave submitted by the petitioner on medical ground was approved the absence of the petitioner for period exceeding three years invited consequences stated in second part of Rule 16(3) of the said Rules. This is particularly when sub-rule (1) of Rule 16 of the said Rules clearly states that leave shall not be claimed as a matter of right and that its grant or refusal is within the discretion of Management/school. When there is no material to show that such discretion was exercised by the respondent no.2 Headmaster in favour of the petitioner for long period of almost a decade, it was clear that the petitioner had abandoned his services as contemplated under second part of sub-rule (3) of Rule 16. 12. Yet, taking advantage of the said communication dated 28-11-2016, issued by the Headmaster, the petitioner claimed to have reported for duty on 02-01-2015 and on this communication the said Headmaster promptly recorded an endorsement that the petitioner had joined duty on the said date at 10.30 am. 13. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 Headmaster issued the impugned communication dated 24-07-2015, informing the petitioner that he was deemed to have abandoned service under Rule 16(3) of the said Rules for having remained absent without explanation for more than 5 years. 13. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 Headmaster issued the impugned communication dated 24-07-2015, informing the petitioner that he was deemed to have abandoned service under Rule 16(3) of the said Rules for having remained absent without explanation for more than 5 years. The petitioner is taking advantage of the exchange of communication with the respondent no.2 Headmaster and the fact that he did work from 20-01-2015 till 24-07-2015 in the school, as a consequence of the permission granted by respondent No.2 Headmaster. The question that needs to be examined is, as to whether such acts of the respondent no.2 Headmaster which were clearly in violation of the relevant rules would foist liability on the respondent no.1 Management for allowing the petitioner to continue in service on the post of Peon. The answer has to be in the negative. 14. This is because the said actions on the part of respondent no.2 Headmaster cannot override the relevant rules and dilute the consequence of the second part of sub-rule (3) of Rule 16 of the said Rules. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner was deemed to have abandoned service under Rule 16(3) of the said Rules. 15. In this backdrop, it becomes evident that the School Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the impugned order and dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. An employee who is least bothered about his service for almost a decade cannot claim that once he applied for medical leave, he could walk into the school after a decade at his own sweet will and resume service. This type of interpretation would lead to illogical consequences, which cannot be permitted. In fact, when the petitioner failed to resume service and remained continuously absent from duty for a period exceeding three years, his service stood voluntarily abandoned. 16. In the light of the above, the Writ Petition is found to be without any merit and it is dismissed.