1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. L.P.A.No.289/2007 in Writ Petition No.4720/2006 (Shri Shivaji Education Society .vs. The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati and ors.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders ======================================= S/Shri A.M. Gordey and K.S. Narwade, Advocates for the Appellants. Shri K.S. Dhote, AGP for Respondents 1 & 2. Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for Respondent No.3. CORAM : K.J. ROHEE, & R.C. CHAVAN, JJ DATED : FEBRUARY 5, 2008 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Respondent no.3 was appointed as Instructor in Electrical Trade by the appellants for one academic session by appointment order dated 31.7.1995. His services were terminated by the end of the Academic Session i.e. on 30.6.1996. On 1.12.1997 approval was granted to the appointment of respondent no.3 for the academic session 1995-96 i.e. from 3.8.1995 to 30.4.1996 by relaxing the conditions of 2 educational qualification and experience. Respondent no.3 challenged his termination before the School Tribunal. By judgment dated 17.8.2006 the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed reinstatement of respondent no.3 without back wages. The appellants challenged the said order by preferring writ petition. While admitting the writ petition, the learned Single Judge refused interim relief and the said order is challenged by the present L.P.A. 3. It was strenuously urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the appellants inasmuch as another employee was appointed in place of respondent no.3 and who is working in that post since last about 10 years. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in view of these circumstances the learned Single Judge should have granted stay to the order of the School Tribunal. 4. It is true that respondent no.3 approached the School Tribunal about 4 years after his termination and his reinstatement has been ordered by the School Tribunal after about a period of 10 years. However, this would not persuade us to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge in refusing interim relief. We find no 3 merit in the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. 5. The appellants are at liberty to move the learned Single Judge for taking the matter early. JUDGE JUDGE halwai