1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 4439 OF 2010 Jijamata Mahila Mandal Banosa and another. -: VERSUS :- Gopal Awadhutrao Gujar and another. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : OCTOBER 11, 2010. Heard Shri P.S. Patil, learned Counsel for petitioners, Shri J.Y. Ghurde, learned Counsel for respondent no.1 and Shri Kankale, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.2. By order dated 07.08.2010, the School Tribunal has rejected application for amendment moved by the petitioner – management seeking to incorporate a plea about the invalidity of the appointment of respondent no.1 as Assistant Teacher. According to Shri Patil, learned Counsel the amendment has become necessary because of amendment to appeal memo by respondent no.1 as per application dated 21.04.2010. He points out that the said application is after the orders of this Court dated 11.01.2010 in Writ Petition No.3531/2009. 2 Shri Ghurde, learned Counsel for respondent no.1 states that the matter was remanded back by this Court only for limited purpose and earlier judgment which came to be assailed in Writ Petition No. 3531/2009 the School Tribunal specifically found that the appointment of respondent no.1 is in consonance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (conditions of service) Regulation Act, 1977. He therefore, supports the impugned order. It is apparent that the question, whether appointment of respondent no.1 is legal or otherwise, has been already adjudicated upon by the School Tribunal as per its order/judgment dated 25.10.2007. That judgment was questioned by the employee before this Court in Writ Petition No.3531/2009 and the matter was remanded back only to find out whether the alleged resignation tendered by him was legal or not. In the light of this history, it is apparent that a question which has already been decided finally, cannot be allowed to be reopened by the petitioner. The amendment application moved by respondent no.1 after said remand does not enables the School Tribunal to enlarge the scope after remand. I, therefore, do not find any jurisdictional error in the matter. Writ Petition is therefore rejected. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.