1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4598/2009. Raju Shriram Salok -: VERSUS :- Dwarka Bahuuddeshiya Gramin Vikas Foundation and another. With WRIT PETITION NO. 4659/2009. Yuvraj Bhaurao More -: VERSUS :- Dwarka Bahuuddeshiya Gramin Vikas Foundation and another. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : AUGUST 10, 2010. Heard Shri S. Khandekar, learned Counsel for Petitioners, Shri A.A. Kathane, learned Counsel for Respondent no.1 and learned A.G.P. for respondent no.2. Challenge in both these Writ Petitions is to judgment delivered on 20.03.2009 by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati in Appeal Nos. 67 and 68 of 2008. Challenges raised are also identical. The learned Counsel for respondent no.1 and learned A.G.P. for respondent no.2 is also defending the judgment on the same grounds. After hearing the respective parties at length, I find that it is not necessary for this Court to go into the 2 details at this stage. The contention of petitioners is, in view of the Division Bench judgment reported at 2010 [1] Mh.L.J. 391 (Chandrakant Sahakari Sanstha .vrs. Rajendra Ramuji Belekar and others), though the School in which they were working has been recognized, the seniority of all teaching and non-teaching staff in all three schools ought to have been looked into to find out whether the petitioners were juniors most and therefore, deserve to be terminated. In the alternative and without prejudice to this contention, the learned Counsel contends that in any case names of petitioners ought to have been taken on list of surplus staff for absorption elsewhere. Learned A.G.P. as also Shri Kathane, learned Counsel for respective respondents are trying to distinguish the facts of present matter. According to them, in the precedent cited by Shri Khandekar, learned Counsel the matter was of closure of school and not of de-recognition. They further states that in present petitions the issue arise out of de-recognition orders passed by the High Court. The facts in the reported judgment clearly show that, that matter also arose out of de-recognition. However, it is not necessary for this court to go into more details as the standing of respective petitioner in common seniority list needs to be ascertained and their rights needs to be worked out by the School Tribunal. As that has not been done, the 3 matter is required to be sent back to the School Tribunal. After the basic facts and legal status of petitioners become clear, the law can be applied by the School Tribunal to those facts. Hence without recording any final verdict on the controversy, the impugned judgment dated 20.03.2009 passed in Appeal Nos. 67 and 68 of 2008 by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati are hereby quashed and set aside. The matters are restored back to the file of School Tribunal for taking fresh decision in accordance with the law. The parties shall appear before the School Tribunal in these matters on 27.08.2010. The School Tribunal shall attempt to decide the appeals finally as early as possible and in any case by 31.12.2010. All contentions raised by the parties are open for fresh consideration. Writ Petitions are allowed. Rule accordingly. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.