(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 10458 OF 2010 Nitin s/o. Nagendrarao Hadole, Age : 26 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. At Nath Nagar, Taluka : Degloor, District : Nanded. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The President, Late Nagnath Deoji Motewar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, At : Degloor, Taluka : Degloor, District : Nanded. 2. The Head Master, Pragati Primary School, Line Galli, Taluka : Degloor, District : Nanded. 3. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Taluka and District : Nanded. 4. Anita Vyankatrao Kadam, Age : 27 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. At Billoli, Taluka : Mukhed, District : Nanded. .. Respondents. (2) ....................... Mr. S.R. Kolhare, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.V. Patil, Advocate, holding for Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. V.V. Bhavthankar, Advocate, holding for Mr. S.G. Rudrawar, Advocate, for respondent no.4. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 3RD MARCH 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Challenge is to judgment of the School Tribunal, Latur, dated 30-11-2009, in Appeal No. 34/2009. The said challenge is by respondent no.4 / employee before that Tribunal. Challenge by management (present respondent nos.1 and 2) is already negated by this Court while dismissing Writ Petition No. 1521/2010 today. 2. Adv. Mr. Kolhare, appearing for the petitioner, contends that the question whether petitioner is appointed against vacancy created by termination of present respondent no.4, was not germane before the School Tribunal. According to (3) him, in any case, the School Tribunal has found that the petitioner was appointed against a non-existing post and was, therefore, surplus. He wants to demonstrate to this court, availability of one more Teacher junior to the present petitioner and according to him, that Teacher ought to have been declared as surplus. 3. Adv. Mr. Bhavathankar, holding for Adv. Mr. Rudrawar, for respondent no.4, is supporting the order of School Tribunal. 4. Adv. Mr. A.V. Patil, holding for Adv. Mr. Gunale, for respondent nos.1 and 2, states that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. It is apparent that recruitment of the petitioner is by respondent nos.1 and 2 and the School Tribunal has not found it illegal on the ground that provisions of Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, were violated. Its finding is the appointment is in excess of sanctioned staff. This finding was not necessary to grant relief to respondent no.4 (appellant before School Tribunal). I am, therefore, inclined to hold that the said issue needs to be resolved in appropriate litigation as and when (4) that question crops up between present petitioner and respondent nos.1 and 2. 6. As and when that issue crops up, the issue will be gone into independently by the competent authority, including School Tribunal, without getting influenced by the impugned order dated 30-11-2009. With this clarification, present petition is disposed of. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp10458