1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 8573 OF 2009 Renuka Mata Bahu Uddeshiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and another .. .. Appellants Versus Dayasagar Sambhaji Dhadge and another .. .. Respondents Shri P. N. Surwase, Advocate for the Appellants. CORAM : A. P. DESHPANDE & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 14TH JANUARY, 2010. ORAL ORDER [ PER A. P. DESHPANDE, J. ] : 1. The appellants have challenged an order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court dated 16th December, 2009, whereby though the writ petition filed by the present appellants has been admitted, interim relief has been granted only to the extent of stay of payment of back wages, however, subject to condition that the present appellants reinstate the respondent No. 1 within a period of 2 four weeks from the date of order. 2. The record reveals that respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak by the present appellants with effect from 01st January, 2005 in a recognized school administered and managed by the appellants. The said appointment of the respondent No. 1 was duly approved by the Education Officer of the Zilla Parishad. Some time in the year 2007, the respondent No. 1 was prevented from signing the muster and from attending the school. Terming the said action on the part of the appellants as amounting to otherwise termination, the respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. Despite service of notice of appeal on present appellants, the appellants/management of the school chose not to contest the appeal. 3. No reply was filed and no submissions were made by the present appellants before the Tribunal. The tribunal relying on the factual averments made in the appeal and the material and evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the oral termination/otherwise termination is bad in law and directed reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service. The said judgment and order of the School Tribunal came to be challenged by filing writ petition. In the above facts the learned Single Judge though granted stay of payment of back wages has directed present appellants to reinstate the respondent No. 1. 4. Perused the order passed by the School Tribunal and the learned Single Judge of this Court. We do not find any illegality in 3 the impugned order. The discretion is properly exercised. In the result, there being no merit in the appeal the same stands dismissed. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ A. P. DESHPANDE, J.] bsb/Jan. 2010