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. 1123 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1123 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1123 OF 2008 Komal Rughwani. .. Petitioner. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. Ramesh Ramamurthy for Petitioner. Mr. V.P. Malvankar, AGP., for Respondent no.1 & 2. Mr. Nasir Shaikh i/by A.G. Kothari for R. No. 3. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE: 21st FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE: 21st FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE: 21st FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C. . The petitioner has approached this Court for challenging the order of termination of service by the respondent trust which is running unaided primary school which is duly recognised. The said order of termination of service came to be passed on 26.11.2007. 2. In our view, if a teacher is terminated then he has a remedy to prefer an appeal before the School Tribunal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees 2 of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner expressed an apprehension that by virtue of termination the petitioner has become surplus and, therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner that she has become surplus and deserves to be absorbed cannot be agitated before the School Tribunal. 4. We find that such a contention cannot be accepted for the very reason that the petitioner is challenging her termination of services which resulted in declaring her surplus as per the notice of termination dated 26.11.2007. Whether in fact the petitioner is rendered surplus or not as per Rule 26 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 has to be decided by the Competent Authority. Therefore, merely because the respondent institution has mentioned in the letter of termination that she became surplus cannot be a reason for not approaching the School Tribunal. 5. We make it clear that this Court has not examined the matter on merits and, therefore, all issues and contentions raised in the petition are left open for the decision of the School Tribunal. 3 6. We, therefore, dismiss this petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the School Tribunal. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.)