- 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 4213 OF 2009 Ms. Ansari Zakiya Mohd. Mustafa ..Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, School Education Department & Ors. ..Respondent. Mr. Shaikh Nasir Masih, for the Petitioner. Mr. C. R. Sonawane, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. A. R. Shaikh, for Respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6. Mr. N. R. Bubna, for Respondent No.7. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : JANUARY 06, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6 and respondent No.7. - 2 - 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was appointed as the Assistant Teacher on 12th June 2001 in the school run by respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The services of the petitioner came to be terminated vide order dated 31st July 2004. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the proceeding before the School Tribunal and by an order dated 19th December 2006 the order of termination issued by the management was set aside and the management was directed to reinstate the petitioner with full back- wages. The counsel for the petitioner further contended that the management being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal filed a Writ Petition No. 2393 of 2007 in this Court which was admitted by the Single Bench on 13th April 2007 and by an interim order stayed the effect, operation and decision of the School Tribunal dated 19th December 2006 and therefore, the petitioner could not be reinstated. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the management appointed respondent No.7 as an Assistant Teacher in the mean time and forwarded his proposal to the Education Officer for grant of approval. The Education Officer granted the approval to respondent No. 7. Being aggrieved by the action of the Education - 3 - Officer, the petitioner has filed the present petition, challenging the action of the Education Officer. 4. In the back-drop of the above referred facts, it is evident that the petitioner is a party-respondent in Writ Petition No. 2393 of 2007 filed by the management, which is pending before the learned Single Bench. The petitioner has already succeeded before the School Tribunal which has set aside the order of termination of the petitioner and directed her reinstatement. However, because of the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 13th April 2007 in the Writ Petition No. 2393 of 2007 the direction of reinstatement issued by the School Tribunal could not be implemented and its implementation depends on the outcome of the writ petition No. 2393 of 2007. It appears that in such circumstances, the issue of grant of approval to respondent No. 7 by the Education Officer is wholly independent and has nothing to do, so far as cause of action involved in Writ Petition No. 2393 of 2007 and therefore, we do not propose to show indulgence in the present writ petition. Even otherwise there is no prejudice caused to the petitioner. 5. In the circumstances, present writ petition is disposed of. Needless to mention that outcome of the Writ Petition No. 2393 of - 4 - 2007 will decide whether the order of the School Tribunal dated 19th December 2006 should be implemented or not. Sd/- [D. D. SINHA, J.] Sd/- [ A. A. SAYED, J.]