191wp1833.10.odt 1 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.1833 of 2010 (Mata Bodrai Devi Shikshan Sanstha .vs. The Edu. Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gondia and Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: D. D. Sinha and A. P. Bhangale, JJ. Date : 19/01/2011. Heard Mr.A.Z.Jibhkate, Adv. for the petitioner, Mr.N.R.Rode, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1 and Mr.A.D.Mohgaonkar, Adv. for respondent no.2. The short question which falls for our consideration is whether the Education Officer or the Management has any right to take a decision other than the one taken by the School Tribunal. In the instant case, the services of respondent no.2 came to be terminated by the Management. Respondent no.2 filed an appeal before the School Tribunal which was allowed by the School Tribunal vide order dt. 30.11.2009 and the operative part of the said order reads thus : 191wp1833.10.odt 2 . “1. Appeal is partly allowed under section 11 (2) of the M.E.P.S. Act, 1977. 2. The impugned termination order dated 27.11.2003 is quashed and set aside wholly. 3. The appellant shall be reinstated on the post of P.T.I., if there is a vacancy in the school as per say of the Respondent No.2 and without prejudice to the right of the respondent no.4. 4. Parties to bear their own costs. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Education Officer vide communication/order dt. 2.3.2010 (which is impugned in the petition) directed the Management to appoint respondent no.2 in the Middle School on the post of Special teacher and release his salary regularly. It is submitted that, by virtue of order of the School Tribunal, respondent no.2 was directed to be reinstated on the post of P.T.I. if there is a vacancy in the school as per the say of respondent no.2 and without prejudice to the rights of respondent no.4. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that direction of the Education Officer may be based on the decision of the institution; however, on that basis, the Education Officer 191wp1833.10.odt 3 . cannot ask the Management to appoint respondent no.2 on the post of Special teacher when the School Tribunal directed reinstatement of respondent no.2 on the post of P.T.I. These facts are not in dispute. However, the Counsel for respondent no.2 has submitted that the direction issued by the Education Officer was based on the majority decision of the Management or the Institution and therefore, it is not open for the institution now to turn around and question validity of the decision of the Education Officer. The Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the Education Officer issued direction primarily based on the majority decision taken by the institution in this regard. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel and perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as well as the Education Officer dt. 2.3.2010 which is impugned in the present petition. Perusal of the order of the School Tribunal clearly shows that the appeal filed by respondent no.2 against the order of his termination was partly allowed and the School Tribunal directed the Management to reinstate respondent no.2 on the post of P.T.I. if there is 191wp1833.10.odt 4 . a vacancy in the school as per the say of respondent no.2 in the said appeal and without prejudice to the rights of respondent no.4. It is brought to the notice of this Court that there is no vacancy in the post of P.T.I. in the concerned school. It appears that, considering the majority decision taken by the Management to give appointment to respondent no.2 on the post of Special teacher, the Education Officer appears to have passed the impugned order dt. 2.3.2010 directing the Management to appoint respondent no.2 on the post of Special teacher. It is in these peculiar circumstances that we are required to consider the question as to whether either the Management or the Education Officer has any power to take a decision other than the one taken by the School Tribunal. It is well settled that once the judgment and order is passed by the School Tribunal by issuing a direction to reinstate the appellant on a particular post, it is not open either for the Education Officer or for the Management to deviate from the same on its own. In view of this well settled legal position, the decision taken by the management as well as the order passed by the Education Officer dt. 2.3.2010 based on the said decision, in our 191wp1833.10.odt 5 . view, cannot be sustained in law and liable to be set aside. It is made clear that the Management is required to implement the order passed by the School Tribunal in letter and spirit. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the order dt.2.3.2010 is hereby quashed and set aside. +The petition is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE jais