1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5844/2010. Sanjay Takuba Ugale and others -: VERSUS :- Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : DECEMBER 14, 2010. Heard Shri A.A. Kathane, learned Counsel for petitioners and learned A.G.P. for respondent no. 3 and Shri S. Khandekar, learned Counsel for respondent no.2. It is apparent that the School Tribunal in order to decide appeal has to find out whether respondent no.2 could have been declared surplus. For that purpose and because of the orders of this Court, remanding the matter back to it, passed in Writ Petition Nos. 4598 and 4650 of 2009 on 10.08.2010, petitioners no.1 and 2 have been permitted to be added as party respondents. Learned Counsel for petitioner nos. 1 and 2 states that the orders have been passed without extending 2 opportunity to show cause to petitioners and in any case for determining the entitlement of respondent no.2 to absorption as per the provisions of Rule 25A of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, the addition of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 was not essential. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioners as also learned counsel for caveator / respondent no.2 and learned A.G.P. In the light of the earlier order dated 10.08.2010 passed in above mentioned writ petitions, it is apparent that the question is about retention of backward class candidate in service and for that purpose effort is required to be made to find out who is the junior most person belonging to open category. The orders passed by the School Tribunal do not in any way prejudice the petitioner nos. 1 and 2. All contentions being raised by them before this Court can be raised by them before the School Tribunal and the School Tribunal is duty bound to consider the same. The School Tribunal shall hear the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 after obtaining their reply on record and proceed further with its adjudication. The matter was 3 already made time bound by this Court. The said time expires on 31.12.2010. In the interest of justice, the said time is now extended till 31.03.2011. With these observations, Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.