:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3866 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 3866 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 3866 OF 2008 Subhash Vidya Mandal Dist: Pune, through the Chairman / Secretary ..Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. M. B. Gawade for the Petitioner. Mr. A. P. Vanarse, AGP, for the Respondents - State. Mrs. Anita A. Agarwal for the Respondent No. 3. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 16TH JANUARY, 2009. DATE : 16TH JANUARY, 2009. DATE : 16TH JANUARY, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioner - management of the school has challenged the Order of the School Tribunal dated 22.4.2008 in Appeal No. 44 of 2007 setting aside the petitioner’s decision dated 13.6.2006 to compulsorily retire the appellant (respondent No. 3 herein). 3. Clearly, no fault can be found with the Order of the Tribunal for setting aside order of :2: compulsorily retirement since there is no provision under the Maharashtra Employees of Private School Act, whereby the employee of a private school can be compulsorily retired. This view have been taken by this court earlier in the case of Ramchandra Ramchandra Ramchandra Keshavrao Deo vs. Presiding Officer, School Keshavrao Deo vs. Presiding Officer, School Keshavrao Deo vs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur & Ors. [2006 (3) All M.R. 61]. Tribunal, Nagpur & Ors. [2006 (3) All M.R. 61]. Tribunal, Nagpur & Ors. [2006 (3) All M.R. 61]. 4. Next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was a bar of entertaining dispute pertaining to compulsory retirement since the respondent No. 3 had earlier raised same dispute and it was already decided in Appeal No. 74 of 2006. The Tribunal has gone into question and has come to the conclusion that earlier in Appeal No. 74 of 2006, the respondent No. 3 had not questioned the management’s decision dated 13.6.2006 to compulsorily retire him with effect from 13.9.2006. He had sought for setting aside termination order dated 15.9.2006. There is no error in the finding of the School Tribunal in this regard. In this view of the matter there is no merit in the petition, which is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. :3: (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)