1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9330 of 2010 Mrs.Kanchan Kailash Jaiswal ...Petitioner Versus Tilak Education Society, through its President/Secretary ...Respondents a/w. WRIT PETITION NO.9331 OF 2010 a/w. Civil Application No.2912 of 2011 in Writ Petition No.9331 of 2010 Mr.Rajendra S. Dudhal ...Petitioner Versus Tilak Education Society, through its President/Secretary ...Respondents a/w. WRIT PETITION NO.9333 OF 2010 Mr.Eknath Ramkisan Chaudhar ...Petitioner Versus Tilak Education Society, through its President/Secretary ...Respondents 2 Mr. Prashant Patil for Petitioners. Mr.C.K.Thomas i/b. C.K.Thomas & Associates for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. C.R.Sonawane, AGP for Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED:- 17th JUNE, 2011. P.C. 1. It appears that the grievance made in these petitions is already the subject matter of the representation made by the petitioners dated 20th August, 2010 and 9th September, 2010 respectively. However, none of these representations have been decided so far. In the circumstances, instead of examining the grievance of the petitioners which may involve scrutiny of factual matrix of the case, we think it appropriate to dispose of these petitions with direction to the Appropriate Authority to decide the representations of the petitioners on its own merits in accordance with law. We direct the respondent no.5 to dispose of the representations after giving fair opportunity to both sides, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case, not later than eight weeks from the date on which this order is brought to the 3 notice of the Appropriate Authority either by the petitioners or received through the registry, whichever is earlier. 2. Since there is some doubt about whether the petitioners have made representation to the respondent no.5, who is the Appropriate Authority, we make it clear that the respondent no.5, Deputy Director of Education, Mumbai Region, Mumbai, shall treat the contents of the present writ petitions as the final representation of the petitioners and dispose of the same on its own merits. The question whether respondent no.5 has jurisdiction to answer the grievance raised by the petitioners in these petitions is also kept open, to be decided on its own merits. 3. Petitions are disposed of on the above terms. 4. Civil Application No.2912 of 2011 filed in Writ Petition No.9331 of 2010 is disposed of in view of disposal of Writ Petition No.9331 of 2010. We make it clear that if the Appropriate Authority decides the issue in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners would be entitled for suitable relief as would be granted by the said Authority or 4 appropriate forum . All questions in these behalf are left open. 5. We also make it clear that the question regarding wrongful termination or otherwise termination, if any, to be raised by the petitioners will however have to be pursed by way of statutory remedy available to the petitioners, which will be decided on its own merits. In other words, the Appropriate Authority will decide issues arising during the period when the concerned petitioner/employee was in service. (R.Y.GANOO, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)