IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 20077 of 2010 Date of Decision: 11.11.2010. Adarsh Mahila Shiksha Pratishthan Society, Faridabad --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner is a society running schools in Faridabad. Respondent no.4 was working as a P.T.I in one of its schools namely Vidya Mandir Senior Secondary School, Sector 15-A, Faridabad. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against respondent no.4 by the Managing Committee after placing him under suspension and finally on completion of the inquiry, respondent no.4 was dismissed from service vide order dated 24.1.2006. Respondent no.4 preferred an appeal before the D.E.O, Faridabad. The appeal was allowed and order of termination was set aside vide order dated 5.4.2006 passed by respondent no.3. The Managing Committee of the petitioner society filed an appeal against the order of respondent no.3 before respondent no.2 which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 9.1.2008. The petitioner society, however, filed a review petition before respondent no.2. During the pendency of this review petition respondent no.4 filed CWP No. 8645 of 2009 seeking implementation of order of respondent no.3 for his reinstatement. This writ petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 29.5.2009 asking the respondent no.3 to CWP. No. 20077 of 2010 -2- consider the representation dated 10.2.2009. As a consequence of the aforesaid order, respondent no.3-,D.E.O, Faridabad passed the impugned order dated 11.8.2009 asking the petitioner to reinstate respondent no.4 immediately. The petitioner filed a review petition in CWP No.8645 of 2009. This review petition has also been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 30.4.2010 while allowing the petitioner herein to challenge the order dated 11.8.2009. One of the grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that without deciding the review petition filed by the petitioner, the order of reinstatement has been passed. In view of the above plea raised in the writ petition, it is deemed appropriate that respondent no.3 be directed to decide the review application of the petitioner. This petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to respondent no.3 to decide the review petition dated 18.2.2008 within a period of two months. Reinstatement of respondent no.4 shall remain subject to outcome of the review petition. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 11.11.2010. lucky