1 194210 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1942 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1347 OF 2010 Jayashree Madhav Kulkarni ...Applicant V/s. Ashok Vaijnath Kulkarni & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. P.M. Gore for the Applicant / Ori. Respondent No. 5 Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar for the Petitioner Mr. Samir Patil, A.G.P., for Respondents No. 1 and 2 Mr. A.M. Joshi for Respondent No. 3. CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE: 29TH MARCH, 2011 P.C.:- By this application, three reliefs have been claimed. The first relief is to vacate the ad-interim order passed by the Court while admitting the writ petition on 18th February, 2010. The second relief is to direct the writ petitioner to effect service on the unserved parties. 2 194210 The third relief is for fixing the writ petition for final hearing at an early date. 2. So far as the first relief is concerned, the writ petition takes exception to the order passed by the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, whereby direction has been issued to remove the writ petitioner from the post of Head Master, and instead, hand over the charge of the said post to respondent No. 5 / applicant. As the writ petition is admitted, it presupposes that formidable case has been made out by the petitioner. Since prima facie case is made out, coupled with the fact that, if the order of the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, which is impugned in the writ petition, is allowed to be implemented, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss. Taking any view of the matter, therefore, the ad-interim order passed by this Court on February 18, 2010 was inevitable, and there is no tangible reason to vacate the said order. 3. Accordingly, the prayer for vacating ad-interim order as pressed by respondent No. 5 / applicant is rejected. Instead, the ad-interim order shall continue till the disposal of the writ petition. 3 194210 4. Insofar as the second relief claimed in this application, by now, all the respondents have been duly served. Accordingly, the same does not survive for consideration. 5. The third relief of expediting the hearing of the writ petition cannot be acceded to, considering the present assignment and the Final Hearing Bord already notified. As of now, there are matters pertaining to year 1997 notified on the board which are pending hearing, besides the Supreme Court expedited matters. Hence, relief of expediting hearing of writ petition is rejected. 6. This application is disposed of accordingly, with liberty to renew the request at a later stage, which will be considered on its own merits. MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.