1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6567 OF 2009 Barshi Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & Ors. )..Petitioners Vs Shri Ramdas Babaji Vitkar & Ors. )..Respondents ---- Mr.S.S.Shah & Ms.Gauri S.Shah for the petitioners. Mrs.L.B.Patre AGP for the respondent nos.2 & 3. Mr.G..N.Salunke @ Umesh Kurund for the respondent no.1. ---- Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 10th December, 2009. PC 1 Heard both sides. In my view matter can be disposed off finally. Hence, rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. 2 The management/employer impugns an order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Solapur on 26.6.2009 below Exh.5 in Appeal No.100 of 2007. By the impugned order the Presiding officer has confirmed ad-interim order dated 29.11.2007 by which ad-interim order, impugned oral termination order passed by the respondent dated 26.10.2007 was stayed. Perusal of the impugned order indicates that some of the points which have been raised in this petition have not been dealt with though there is some documentary evidence produced before me to support the contentions as raised. One of 2 the contention is that approval was not granted on the footing that the post on which the respondent was appointed was abolished in view of the new staffing pattern. In this regard, compilation has been filed in this Court. Amongst documents in compilation, is a letter dated 11.9.2007 issued by the Deputy Director of Education laying out the staffing pattern and stating therein that 3 instructors and 2 peons have been rendered surplus. The petitioners have also placed before this Court an affidavit dated 8.9.2006 and a guarantee letter dated 11.9.2006 signed by the present respondent. These documents indicate that the respondent was aware of the likely change of staffing pattern. There is further a document dated 19.10.2006 issued by the Director of Education which pertains to the grant of the first approval and it is stated in condition no.3 that in case the post is declared surplus in view of the staffing pattern then the approval will be deemed to have been cancelled. The court was also required to consider effect of condition no.7 of the conditions of initial appointment as contained in the appointment letter dated 28.2.2006. In my view, these aspects of the matter have not been dealt with. 3 In the circumstances, rule is made absolute and the matter is remanded back to the School Tribunal to consider all aspects including the aspects which are mentioned hereinabove. Now since ad-interim relief was granted in the year 2007 and was continued till 2009, pending the fresh decision, the same ad-interim relief will be continued. It is made clear that the School Tribunal to decide the matter on its own merits without being influenced by any observations made in this order or in the impugned order. Tribunal to decide the matter within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this court. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 3 4