-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4022 OF 1008 The President, Siddhartha Charitable Trust ... Petitioner versus Kumbhar Tanaji Kallappa and another ...Respondent Mr. S.G. Deshmukh for the petitioner. Mr. A.M. Joshi for respondent No.1. Mr. A.P. Vanarase, AGP, for the State-respondent No.2. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. DATE: JULY 15, 2008. P.C. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Learned counsel Mr. Joshi and the learned AGP appear for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively waive service of rule. 2. By filing this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the School Tribunal, Kolhapur Region, dated 17th March, 2008, by which the School Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the first respondent and set aside the impugned order of termination. 3. The first respondent had filed an appeal challenging his -2- termination order. Respondent No.1 was appointed as a Peon in the petitioners school. The School management had passed the order of termination dated 9th December, 1997 which was made effective from 14th December, 1997. 4. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that in spite of the fact that it was pointed out to the Tribunal that the said order of termination is already withdrawn by the management, yet the Tribunal went on deciding the matter and set aside the order of termination. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, has also submitted that it is true that the impugned order of termination was withdrawn by the management at the time when the matter was decided by the Tribunal. 5. Considering the said factual aspect, which is not in dispute, in my view, the Tribunal should not have decided the dispute as it was not necessary to decide the matter as the same has become academic in view of the withdrawal of the termination order by the management. 6. It was pointed out to the Tribunal that since there was already an interim stay granted by the Tribunal, the first respondent was continued to remain in service. The Tribunal, therefore, made futile exercise by deciding -3- the matter by writing an order of six pages which was not required in the facts of the case. Considering the said aspect, since the matter had already become infructuous before the Tribunal, the Tribunal was not required to decide the matter on merits. 7. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside in view of the statement of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the order of termination has already been withdrawn by the management and the concerned employee was continued in service with continuity of service. In fact, there was no cause of action available with the concerned employee to proceed with the appeal before the Tribunal. It is clarified that, subsequently if the management has passed any other order, it has no relevance for the present controversy. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.