-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISIDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1151 OF 2004 Smt.Jane Misquitta ..Petitioner Vs. The Administrator/Trustee Gulshan Prathamik Shala and Anr. ..Respondents .... Mr.R.D.Suryavanshi for Petitioner Mr.A.G.Kothari for Respondent no.2 .... CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. DATE : MARCH 22,2005 DATE : MARCH 22,2005 DATE : MARCH 22,2005 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The impugned order has been passed in appeal no.2 of 1992 by the School Tribunal at Mumbai and it has been held that the said appeal was not maintainable. This view taken by the Tribunal does not call for any interference as the appellant did not allege the termination of service or supersession. 2. However, the findings recorded on other issues which were not germane to the issue of maintainability of the appeal under Section 9 of the M.E.P.S.Act, 1977 would not come in the way of the -2- petitioner if and when she approaches the appropriate forum under M.E.P.S.Act, 1977 for redressal of her grievance. 3. Save and except the above clarification, petition is rejected summarily. [ B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. ]