1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2302 OF 2007 Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation ..Petitioner. Vs. Sanjay Shankar Gangurde and others ..Respondents. .... Mr. A.S. Rao for the Petitioner. Mr. A.B. Vagyani for Respondent No.1. Mr. A.A. Garge for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr. M.S. Kumthekar for Respondent No.4. ..... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 31st March, 2008. P.C. : 1. The First Respondent was appointed as a clerk at Bapurao Agharkar Primary School at Kalyan on 14th February, 2005 on probation for a period of two years. According to the management as well as the First Respondent requisite procedures were followed by issuing an advertisement on 26th May, 2004, inviting applications for interviews and thereafter making an appointment. The post is stated to have fallen vacant on 30th November, 2003. According to the management, the Education Department of the Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation was 2 notified on 2nd March, 2005. In the meantime on 28th March, 2005 the Deputy Director of Education, had notified the Municipal Corporation through its administrative officer a list of surplus employees including the Fourth Respondent, Smt. Rohini Mohan Dolhare who was directed to be absorbed in the same school viz. Bapurao Agharkar Primary School. Accordingly a letter was addressed by the administrative officer of the School Board to the Headmaster of the Primary School on 5th May, 2005 calling upon him to absorb the Fourth Respondent. On 1st September, 2005 the management terminated the services of the First Respondent, stating that the appointment of the First Respondent was subject to approval. The First Respondent was accordingly discharged from service. The First Respondent moved the School Tribunal in an appeal under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 21st December, 2005 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of termination. The First Respondent was granted the relief of reinstatement with consequential benefits and the administrative officer was directed to place the Fourth Respondent 3 in the list of surplus employees and to accommodate her in accordance with rules. 2. The challenge in these proceedings has been at the behest of the Municipal Corporation and the administrative officer of the School Board. It has been urged on behalf of the Petitioner that the communication issued by the administrative officer of the School Board on 5th May, 2005 was in pursuance of the directions issued by the Deputy Director of Education on 28th March, 2005 directing the absorption of the Fourth Respondent. Hence, the direction to reinstate the First Respondent and to place the Fourth Respondent in the list of surplus employees was outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. 3. There is merit in the submission which has been urged on behalf of the administrative officer that the order passed by the School Tribunal clearly overlooks the fact that the appointment of the First Respondent was subject to approval and that as a matter of fact before the approval was granted, the Deputy Director of 4 Education had called upon the School Board to absorb the Fourth Respondent who was a surplus employee. The action taken by the School Board on 5th May, 2005 was sequential in nature and was consequential to the directions that was issued by the Deputy Director of Education. The School Tribunal has observed that the attitude of the department was negligent and there are several observations in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal about the conduct of the department. There is merit in the grievance of the Petitioner that these observations are without any basis and ought not to have been made particularly in the absence of any valid or justifiable reasons. Be that as it may, the factual position at the present point of time is that the Fourth Respondent has now been absorbed and has already been engaged in an alternate institution. The order of the School Tribunal directing that the First Respondent be reinstated has already been implemented by the management of the School. In these circumstances, it is not necessary for the Court, having regard to the developments which have taken place in the meantime, to issue directions which would unsettle this position, in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Both 5 the Petitioner and the Fourth Respondent have been gainfully employed and the Fourth Respondent, it must be noted, has not taken any steps to challenge the order of the School Tribunal. The Petition shall accordingly stand disposed of.