-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1715 OF 2008 Smt. Sangeeta L. Gupta ...Petitioner versus The Secretary, Dayanand Vedic Vidyalaya and others ... Respondents Mr. A.L. Gore for the petitioner. Mr. Surel S. Shah for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE: JULY 30, 2008. P.C. By filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to respondent no.3 to grant approval to the petitioner's appointment in view of the earlier proposal submitted by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is also prayed that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 may be directed to allow the petitioner to sign the muster roll and allow her to exercise her duties as an Assistant Teacher/Shikshan Sevak . 2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as an Assitant Teacher after following due procedure in respondent No.1 School and as such she has served two years and nine months. It is the case of -2- the petitioner that respondent No.3 has also considered the question about giving approval and respondent No.3 has granted such approval. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the petitioner' s appointment is not as per law as at the time of her appointment there was ban on such recruitment. It is submitted by the counsel that under Section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act, there is an alternative remedy available of filing appeal before the School Tribunal. The impugned decision of the management may amount to “otherwise termination”. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 4. Even as per the say of the petitioner, she is prevented from signing the muster roll. Her services have been terminated by way of oral order of the management in the sense that she was not allowed to sign the muster roll and permitted to resume her duties. These facts are not in dispute. Considering the said aspect, the petitioner is directed to first approach the School Tribunal under the M.E.P.S. Act challenging the so- called oral termination. However, considering the fact that the petition is pending before this Court till date, if the petitioner prefers an appeal within a period of two weeks before the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall decide the matter on its own merit and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have fairly agreed that they -3- will not raise any objection regarding limitation. It will be open to the petitioner to apply for interim relief before the School Tribunal and it is for the School Tribunal to consider such application in accordance with law and as deem fit. After filing the appeal, it will be open for the petitioner to request the School Tribunal to expedite the hearing. The petitioner is given liberty to prefer an appeal on all available points. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the intervening period, the petitioner was not paid salary though she had worked. An appropriate prayer in this regard may also be made before the School Tribunal regarding unpaid salary for the intervening period. 6. Subject to what is stated above, the petition is disposed of. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits and subject to the above, both sides are at liberty to take all available contentions before the School Tribunal in accordance with law. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. A.A. SAYED, J.