( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 135 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 539 OF 2009 Pinjari Aabid Shaikh Hussain APPELLANT VERSUS The Chairman, Anjuman Farogh-E-Taleem, Dhule and others. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. Amol S. Sawant, advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.P. Brahme, advocate for respondents No. 1 and 3. Mr. S.R. Barlinge, advocate holding for Mr. S.S. Patil, advocate for the respondent No. 5. ..... [CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ.] [DATE : 7th April, 2010] PER COURT : 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 11th June, 2009 in writ petition No. 539/2009, issuing Rule and declining to grant interim relief. The appellant is thus aggrieved by the latter part of the order of the learned Single Judge declining to grant interim relief. 2. It appears that on an appeal being filed before ( 2 ) the School Tribunal by respondent No.5 claiming to be the senior most peon and entitled to be promoted, the Tribunal allowed the said appeal and consequently, the appellant being aggrieved by the decision of the School Tribunal filed the said writ petition. 3. The learned Single Judge heard the learned counsel for the parties and by the order impugned in this letters patent appeal, issued Rule but declined to grant interim relief. Mr. Amol Sawant, learned counsel for the appellant, has urged before us that the order of the School Tribunal is patently contrary to the principles of law and the judgement on which the Tribunal has relied does not favour the case of respondent No.5, but, in fact, it is in favour of the present appellant. Mr. S.P. Brahme, learned counsel for respondent No.1, has supported the appellant as the respondent No. 1 is the Management. Mr. S.R. Barlinge, learned counsel for respondent No. 5, has supported the order of the learned Single Judge. 4. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the ( 3 ) learned counsel for the parties, exercised his discretion and found that no case for grant of interim relief was made out and consequently, rejected the prayer. In the event the appellant succeeds in the writ petition, the clock can certainly be put back and the appellant would not be deprived of any benefits, including financial benefits. In that light of the matter, according to us, there is no error on the part of the learned Single Judge to decline to grant interim relief. 5. In the result, therefore, there is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is summarily dismissed, with no order as to costs. 6. Since the letters patent appeal is dismissed, the civil application No. 7481/2009 does not survive and stands dismissed accordingly. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] [ P.V. HARDAS ] JUDGE JUDGE NPJ/lpa135-09 ( 4 )