1 W.P.No.5267/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.5267 OF 2011. 1. Kai.Gurudayalsingh Rathod Magasvargiye Shikshan Sanstha, Brahmani Garada Tq.Kannad, Dist.Aurangabad through its President Indarchand Gurudayalsingh Rathod, Age 51 years, Occ.Social Service, R/o Brahmani Garada, Tq. Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad. 2. The Head Master, Kai.Gurudayalsingh Rathod Magasvargiye Shikshan Sanstha, Brahmani Garada, Tq.Kannad, Dist.Aurangabad. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. Ganesh S/o Ratnakar Gangurde, Age 35 years, Occ.Nil, R/o Mehere Nivas, Shiv Nagar, Kannad, Tq. Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad. 2. District Social Welfare Officer, Aurangabad. ... Respondents. ... Mr.G.K.Thigale (Naik), advocate for the petitioners. Mr.K.M.Nagarkar, advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr.K.B.Choudhari, Addl.Govt. Pleader for 2 W.P.No.5267/11 Respondent No.2. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 03.10.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The present Respondent has filed appeal alleging oral termination on part of the present petitioner. Along with the appeal, the Respondent also moved an application for interim stay to the said termination order. The School Tribunal vide order dated 1.7.2011 stayed the termination of the present Respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have filed the present petition. 4. On 19.7.2011, this Court had granted 3 W.P.No.5267/11 interim relief in terms of prayer clause (C) i.e. stay to the implementation, execution, operation and effect of the impugned order dated 1.7.2011. 5. Mr.Nagarkar, learned counsel for the Respondent NO.1 submits that the order of termination is itself illegal. The petitioners illegally came with the stand of resignation of the Respondent No.1. The School Tribunal considered the prima facie case of the Respondent and had passed the interim order. The said order is passed on prima facie appreciation of the facts on record. The learned counsel also submitted on the other factual matrix of the matter and prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. The present Respondent NO.1 in his appeal alleges oral termination on 1.5.2010 and the interim order of stay is passed on 1.7.2011 i.e. after a lapse of more than a year. When the termination order had already taken effect, there is no question of staying said termination order. Whether the Respondent No.1 had tendered his resignation as contended by the petitioner or the 4 W.P.No.5267/11 Respondent No.1 was orally terminated as contended by the Respondent NO.1 is an issue which the Tribunal would decide at the time of deciding the appeal. It would be too premature at this stage to decide or observe anything in that regard. When the alleged termination order had taken place more than a year back, there was no propriety in staying the said termination order after a lapse of one year and more so, when the appeal is pending. 7. In light of the above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The School Tribunal shall decide the appeal filed by the present Respondent No.1 expeditiously. The said appeal is pending for more than a year. The Tribunal shall decide the said appeal preferably within a period of six (6) months from today. 8. Rule made absolute accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 9. Needless to state that I have not observed anything on merits and the Tribunal 5 W.P.No.5267/11 shall decide the appeal on its own merits. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp5267.11