:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5694 OF 2001 WRIT PETITION NO. 5694 OF 2001 WRIT PETITION NO. 5694 OF 2001 Tanaji Gulab Gaikwad ..Petitioner versus The Chairman, Akhil Bhartiya Lokseva Sangh, Ulhasnagar - 3 Dist : Thane & Ors. ..Respondents WITH WITH WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5702 OF 2001 WRIT PETITION NO. 5702 OF 2001 WRIT PETITION NO. 5702 OF 2001 Sudam Bhagwan Patil ..Petitioner versus The Chairman, Akhil Bhartiya Lokseva Sangh, Ulhasnagar - 3 Dist : Thane & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar for the Petitioners. Mr. Mandar Limaye for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 22ND JANUARY, 2009. DATE : 22ND JANUARY, 2009. DATE : 22ND JANUARY, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. The petitioner in both the petitions have challenged the order of the School Tribunal :2: dismissing their appeals. Having heard the matter it appears an important question has not been considered. The short question which needs investigation by the Tribunal is whether the respondents management calculated the extent of reservation as 52% and on that basis worked out the number of posts which were to be treated as reserved. If so there has been an excessive reservation i.e. above 34%. As a result the petitioners appointment might have to be treated as not made in a reserved post. 3. In support of this contention, petitioners relied on the unreported judgment of this Court Court Court dated 5.6.2008 in Writ petition No. 2903 of 2007 dated 5.6.2008 in Writ petition No. 2903 of 2007 dated 5.6.2008 in Writ petition No. 2903 of 2007 Mrs. Deepali Deepak Buva vs. The State of Mrs. Deepali Deepak Buva vs. The State of Mrs. Deepali Deepak Buva vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Maharashtra & Ors. Maharashtra & Ors. It appears to be the petitioners contention that the respondent management had calculated the extent of reservation as 52% instead of 34% as a result of which they treated the greater number of seats as reserved and therefore treated the petitioners appointment as seats meant for reserved category. However, apparently, this contention which goes to the root of the matter was not advanced before the Tribunal but having regard to its importance to the case, I am of view that :3: this needs to be investigated into. Accordingly the impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh decisions. The Tribunal shall permit appropriate amendments and permit additional evidence to be led in the matters before taking a final decision. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 9.2.2009. The Tribunal shall dispose of the matters as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date parties first appear before it. Rule disposed of in the above terms in both the petitions. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)