(1) WP 362.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.362 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9411 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 362 OF 2009 Kisan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Udgir and anr. PETITIONERS- (APPLICANTS) VERSUS Nageshkumar S/o Sadhurao Salunke and anr. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for the Petitioner-applicant. Mrs. S.G. Chincholkar, Advocate for the Respondent no.1. ..... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 4TH MARCH, 2011 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Civil Application no. 9411 of 2010 filed by respondent no.1-employee for vacation of interim orders or in the alternative for final hearing was considered on last occasion and thereafter matter was adjourned to today. 2. Advocate Chincholkar appearing for respondent no.1 has urged that interim order given by School Tribunal continues to operate even today. It is apparent that defence of petitioner-management has been struck off and that order has been questioned in (2) WP 362.2009 Writ Petition. Because of interim stay granted by this Court, the School Tribunal is not in a position to proceed further with the adjudication of the matter. She therefore states that interim stay given by this Court should either be vacated or then other appropriate orders be passed. According to her respondent-employee can be compensated by paying him salary also for the period for which he was not permitted to join. 3. Shri Gunale appearing for the original petitioner has invited attention to the fact that appeal was filed before the School Tribunal sometime in 2006 alongwith prayer for condonation of delay and those proceedings were registered as Misc. Application no. 22 of 2006. In those proceeding, interim reinstatement was sought and on day of filing, the School Tribunal passed exparte order and granted that relief. He points out that the interim relief was to operate till appearance of management or till filing of say by management. Management filed its say and appearance on 22.3.2006 and interim relief was not continued thereafter. According to him, in this situation the order of striking off (3) WP 362.2009 defence of petitioner-management is without jurisdiction. He further contends that alleged violation of interim orders was complained after more than two years. He has invited my attention to representation forwarded by respondent no.1 to Director of Education to show that when stay was operating i.e. during 15.2.2006 till 22.3.2006, respondent no.1 even did not report for duties and hence there was no occasion for management either to comply with the order or to defy it. 4. He also points out that later on School Tribunal has condoned delay in filing the appeal and the appeal now is to be decided on merits. 5. Perusal of representation dated 12.4.2006 annexed as Exhibit R-5 alongwith reply affidavit of respondent no.1 shows that respondent no.1 for the first time reported to school on 10.4.2006. Earlier on 3.3.2006 he forwarded stay order dated 15.2.2006 by post and he further claims that he has thereafter forwarded that order time and again. In other words, said management appeared before the School Tribunal and filed their say the respondent no.1 had not reported for duties. (4) WP 362.2009 6. As the petitioner management has not questioned the order of School Tribunal condoning delay, in present situation I find that interest of justice can be met with by directing School Tribunal to decide the appeal filed by respondent no.1 itself finally and as early as possible. The order striking off defence of present petitioner cannot be sustained and same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. Hence, with consent of parties, the impugned order dated 2.12.2008 passed by Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Latur below exhibit 34 in appeal no. 65 of 2007 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner- management is permitted to defend itself before the School Tribunal. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 28.3.2011 and School Tribunal shall after hearing them attempt to decide the appeal as early as possible and by 30th June, 2011. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. In view of this, Civil Application no. 9411 of 2010 is partly allowed and disposed of. Sd/- [B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.] arp