1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3728/2008 (Chandrakant Shikshan Sanstha vs. Shri Onkar Narayan Tembekar and another) ====================================== Shri Niles Adbe, Adv. for the petitioner Shri A.S.Chandurkar, Adv. for respondent No.1 Shri Patel, A.T.P. for Respondent No.2. CORAM : B.P.Dhamadhikari, J. DATE : 18 th NOVEMBER, 2008 Heard learned counsel for the parties. By the impugned order/judgment dated 21.7.2008, the School Tribunal has set aside the termination order dated 29.5.2006 issued by the present petitioner to respondent no.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that though the Caste Scrutiny Committee has initially invalidated the cast claim of the present respondent no.1, the Division Bench of this Court has set aside that order subsequently and the matter has been remanded back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration. Therefore, this petition should be adjourned for a period of four weeks to await fresh consideration by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Advocate Chandurkar for respondent No.1 states that even if Scrutiny Committee passes order adverse to employee, it will not have the effect of 2 restoring the order of termination dated 29.5.2006 and the management will be required to pass a fresh order of termination. He further points out that the impugned order dated 21.07.2008 has been implemented and the respondent has been reinstated & paid backwages. However, Advocate Adbe contends that the back-wages are not paid and the Head Master who colluded with the rival group in the management has obliged respondent no. 1 by effecting reinstatement. Learned A.G.P. states that as the matter is pending before the Caste Scrutiny Committee, this Court may pass appropriate order. It is apparent that if the Scrutiny Committee again invalidates the caste certificate of the present respondent No.1, the management will be required to pass fresh order of termination. As on today it cannot be said that caste certificate of respondent no.1 is invalid and therefore, he cannot be continued in service. In view of the order of Division Bench, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the School Tribunal. However it is made clear that if the Caste Scrutiny Committee again invalidates the caste certificate of Respondent no.1 and the petitioner is required to pass order of termination again, consideration of the controversy by the School 3 Tribunal in the impugned order shall not come in its way while considering the validity of such fresh termination. With this clarification, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE Rvjalit