1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.194 OF 2010 (VIDARBHA AADIWASI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA ..VS.. THE E.O.(SEC.) Z.P. GONDIA & (2) PRABHU SADASHIO DESHMUKH) WITH WRIT PETITION NO.243 OF 2010 (VIDARBHA AADIWASI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA ..VS.. THE E.O.(SEC.) Z.P. GONDIA & (2) DAMODAR ISAM GAHANE) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Shashikant Borkar, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri V.A.Thakare, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Shri P.N. Shende, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 01, 2010. 1. Respective respondent No.2 in both these petitions were reinstated by the School Tribunal vide its judgment dated 01.02.1999 in Appeals No.280/1986 and 281/1986. The petitioner management then filed Misc. Applications for setting aside those judgments of the School Tribunal and those applications were rejected by the School Tribunal on 25.04.2006. The order of reinstatement in favour of respondent No.2, therefore, attained finality and they came to be reinstated. 2. After their reinstatement on the ground that the Education Officer has refused approval to their appointment, they were again terminated by the management and in these facts, by judgment dated 09.11.2009, the School Tribunal has set aside that termination. 2 3. Advocate Shri Borkar states that there are no vacant posts with the management and in this situation the management is not in a position to reinstate respective respondent No.2 or pay them their salaries. 4. As the earlier order of the School Tribunal has attained finality the management has no option to comply with it and the reasons put-forth cannot be sufficient to indirectly consider challenge to earlier judgment of the School tribunal dated 01.02.1999. I do not find any case made out warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Both the writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed. No costs. JUDGE RR..