1 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4507 OF 2001 Guruvarya V.S. Khandekar Vidya Pratishtan and anr .. Petitioner -versus Malti Hanumant Todkar and ors .. Respondent. Ms Kirankumar Pakhade i/b S. S. Pakale for the Petitioner Mr A. P.Vanarase, AGP for the respondent Mr A. M. Joshi, for respondent No.1. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED: 8th April, 2010 P.C. 1. Matter is called out from the final hearing board. 2. The petitioner management has challenged the impugned order dated 26.5.2001, whereby respondent No.l has been declared as 'not surplus' and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent employee in the petitioner school. The Tribunal thereby quashed and set aside the order dated 26.9.2000 declaring her as surplus. 3. The petitioner has filed present petition. This Court while admitting the petition though initially granted interim relief, it was subsequently vacated after hearing both the parties. The said 2 order was confirmed even by the Division Bench. In the result, respondent teacher has been working with the petitioner since 2000 without any break. Now the petition is listed for final hearing and today is under the caption of 'disposal'. 4. In view of this without observing anything further in the merits of the matter and as the impugned order itself declaring the action of the petitioner as illegal and bad in law and directing to treat the respondent as continuous, I see there is no reason to interfere with the said order. The order cannot be even otherwise stated to be bad in law or unjust or contrary to law. Lapse of time itself in my view is sufficient to maintain the order passed by the Tribunal. 5. Resultantly the petition is disposed of. Rule discharged. No costs. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)