1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4024 OF 2008 Shetkari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & Anr. ...Petitioners. Vs. Suryakant Kundalik Kamble & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr.Sandeep B. Kurne i/b. Mr. Umesh R. Mankapure for the Petitioners. Mr. Anant Vadgaonkar for Respondent No.1. Mrs. S.S. Bhende, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. ..... CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. November 14, 2008. P.C. Rule, by consent of Counsel returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waive service. By consent of Counsel and at their request taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. These proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are directed against an interim order passed by the Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal at Solapur on 28th February 2008 2 staying an order of termination and directing the management to reinstate the First Respondent and to pay him his wages. The First Respondent was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on a clock hour basis from the Academic Year 2002. Admittedly, on the date of his appointment, the First Respondent was not duly qualified. The First Respondent at the appointment held an M.A. Degree, but did not hold the B.Ed. qualification which is required for a secondary school teacher under Schedule B to the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. The appointment of the First Respondent was approved from year to year. On 23rd June 2007, the Deputy Director of Education, Pune Division, granted approval to the appointment of the First Respondent for the current Academic Year which was then come to an end on 30th April 2007. On 30th June 2007, the Management is stated to have issued an advertisement in pursuance of which interviews were held. The First Respondent did not participate in the interviews. From the record before the Court, it would appear that the result of the B.Ed. Examination for which the First Respondent appeared, was notified on 4th July 2007. Hence, it was after the appointment, which was from 3 year to year, had come to an end that the First Respondent acquired the B.Ed. qualification. The order passed by the School Tribunal, directing the management to reinstate the First Respondent has been questioned in these proceedings. There is merit in the submission that the School Tribunal transgressed its jurisdiction in passing an interim mandatory order. Such an order may be passed in exceptional circumstances and not as a matter of course. In the present case, the order passed by the Tribunal virtually amounts to the grant of final relief at the interlocutory stage. The facts which have been brought on record would prima facie indicate that the appointment of the First Respondent was from year to year and until he acquired the B.Ed. qualification in the month of July 2007, the First Respondent was not even a qualified candidate. In these circumstances, an interim mandatory order was not warranted. The order of the School Tribunal transgresses the limitations on the exercise of its jurisdiction. An interim mandatory order of reinstatement ought not to be passed as a matter of course, but on a careful and judicious evaluation of the 4 merits of the case and in compelling circumstances. That is not so in the present case. In these circumstances, the impugned order of the School Tribunal dated 28th February 2008 is set aside. The application for interim relief shall stand dismissed. However, since the appeal is still pending before the School Tribunal, it would be necessary to observe that all the observations contained in the present order are confined to the disposal of the interim application and shall not be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the rival contentions of the parties. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal for receiving directions on 24th November 2008 and the Tribunal may fix a time schedule for the disposal of the appeal. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. ......