1 LPA.141/2010 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 141 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3866 OF 2008 Subhash Vidya Mandal ....Appellant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through Dept. of Education & Ors. ...Respondents. ..... Mr. M.B. Gawade, for the Appellant. Mr.R.M. Patne, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms. Anita A. Agarwal, for Respondent No.3. ..... CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 29thJUNE, 2010. P.C. 1] The Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.3866 of 2008 under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Judgment and Order of the School Tribunal dated 22.4.2008 in Appeal No.44 of 2007. 2 LPA.141/2010 2] Respondent No.3 had challenged decision dated 13.6.2006 of the Management by which he had been compulsorily retired from the service on expiry of three months period by purportedly exercising power conferred upon the State Government in respect of its employees. 3] Relying on a decision of the learned Single Judge in Ramchandra Keshavrao Deo Vs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur & Ors.[2006 (3) All M.R.610, taking the view that there is no provision under the Maharashtra Employees of Private School Act to compulsorily retire the employee of a private school, the writ petition came to be allowed. 4] The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-management is not in a position to show as to why the view taken by the Single Judge cannot be said to be the correct view. 5] The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, however, submits that the appeal filed by the employee in the School Tribunal bearing No.44 of 2007 was barred by res judicata as the employee had already challenged the said decision in another appeal bearing Appeal No. 74 of 2006. 6] The learned Single Judge has considered the said issue in paragraph 11 of the Judgment and given reasons for not accepting the contention of the management. While disposing of Appeal No.74 of 2006, 3 LPA.141/2010 the Tribunal had framed issues whether the employee had cause of action to prefer the said appeal, and the Tribunal had answered the issue in negative. On that occasion the Tribunal had not gone into the reasoning of the order dated 13.6.2006 of the management regarding compulsory retirement of the employee from service. Hence a question of invoking or applying the principle of resjudicata cannot be applied. The learned Single Judge also considered the submission of the appellant and held that the Appellant had nowhere challenged the impugned decision dated 13.6.2006 of the management in the aforesaid appeal. 7] We do not find any merits in the present appeal and therefore, we have not gone into the question of maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be passed under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India. 8] In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.