1 4.wp-4286-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION W.P. NO. 4286 OF 2009 Chandrakant Tatoba Kadam and Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. Ashok Baburao Pawar and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr.Y. A. Sakhare Adv. i/b YKS Legal for Petitioners Mr.Amit Shete Adv. i/b Mr.Amit Borkar for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 Mr.M.S.Topkar Adv. for Respondent No.1 Shri.P.I.Patel AGP for Respondent No.4 .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JULY 22, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners. 2. The Petitioners claim that they are trustees of Prakash Awade Shikshan Sansthan Talandage, Tal.Hatkanangale. The Respondent No.1 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the said Institution. Respondent No.1 came to be terminated from service with effect from 24th March, 2007. He filed appeal before the School Tribunal. The School Tribunal by order dated 29th January, 2009, allowed the appeal. The order of termination came to be set aside and it was directed that Respondent No.1 be reinstated in service on his original post with full 2 4.wp-4286-09 back wages and continuity of service with effect from 24th March, 2007. 3. The Petitioners claim that they are trustees of the said Trust and they have not issued any appointment letter to Respondent No.1. During the pendency of the appeal before the School Tribunal, the Petitioner preferred an application for being impleaded as parties. The said application came to be rejected by order dated 14th October, 2008. The Petitioners have impugned both the orders dated 14th October, 2008 and 29th January, 2009. 4. It appears that there is some dispute between the trustees. The Petitioners claim to be some of the trustees of the Trust. As per PTR Exh-22/10, it shows that Shri.Sanjay Bhojkar is the President of the Trust. In the appeal, the President of the Trust was impleaded as Respondent No.1. The case of the Petitioner is that Respondent No.1 was illegally appointed by the Respondent No.2 and other members of the Trust and no such Resolution was passed in respect of appointment of Respondent No.1. Hence, they have prayed that they be impleaded in the appeal. It appears that there is some dispute between the trustees of the Trust, however, this dispute cannot be gone into in the proceedings before the School Tribunal. When the Petitioners had preferred an application before the School Tribunal, it came to be rejected on 14th October, 2008, no steps were taken by the Petitioners to challenge the said order. The case of the Petitioners is that they are 3 4.wp-4286-09 necessary parties and proper parties to bring forward all the correct facts before the Tribunal. Though the order was passed on 14th October, 2008, no diligence or anxiety has been shown by the Petitioners to challenge the said orders. The Petitioners allowed the proceedings to go on before the School Tribunal without challenging the order dated 14th October, 2008. Now after the proceedings are over and the final order has been passed on 29th January, 2009, the Petitioners have approached this Court. In my view, this appears to be by way of an after thought. 5. In view of the facts that the Petitioners have not shown any diligence in challenging the order dated 14th October, 2008, it seems that they were not really serious about impleading themselves as parties, hence, at this stage, it would not be proper to allow them to challenge the orders dated 14th October, 2008 and 29th January, 2009. In this background, no case is made out for interference by this Court. Writ Petition is rejected. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]