1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 449 of 2010 PETITIONER : Arun S/o Shankarrao Fulzele, Aged about 52 years, through its Secretary, Triratna Bahu Uddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha, Joshi Plot, Vallabh Nagar, Arvi Road, Pulgaon, District Wardha. ..VERSUS.. RESPONDENTS : 1] Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Chandrapur. 2] Ku. Vahida Sher Mohammad Sheikh, Aged about 41 years, Occu. Asstt. Teacher, R/o Hiwra, Post. Sorta, Tah. Devali, Distt. Wardha. 3] Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Wardha. 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 : MARCH 18, 2010. Heard finally learned Advocate Mr. Nitin Khamborkar for the petitioner and learned Advocate Mrs. S.P.Deshpande for the respondent no.2. The School Tribunal, Chandrapur has on 11.11.2009 passed order on three preliminary issues in Appeal No. STC/76/2001 and held that entry of respondent no.2 in service is in accordance with law and school was recognized. This order is challenged in present writ petition. 2 Learned Advocate Mr. Khamborkar contends that petitioner was not possessing the training qualification till 1998 and the alleged training and qualification from Mahila Gram Vidyapeeth, Allahabad, in 1991 is not recognized one. He states that if that qualification was recognized, there was no need for respondent no.2 to obtain training qualification again from Nagpur University in 1998. Hence, finding on preliminary issues by the School Tribunal is erroneous and appeal before it is not maintainable. Learned Advocate Mrs. Deshpande, on the other hand, argues that respondent no.2 has continued in service till 2000 and before her termination i.e. in 1998, she has obtained training qualification. She has invited attention to the order dated 10.10.2001, passed in Writ Petition No. 2620/2000, by the Division Bench of this Court, to urge that services of respondent no.2 were not terminated in 1995. After hearing respective counsel, I find that the School Tribunal has not recorded any finding about the date of termination in the matter. Whether qualification of B.Ed., obtained by the respondent no.2 in 1998 is during the course of her service or thereafter, is the question which needs to be considered. Unless and until this issue is answered, it is clear that the finding recorded by the School Tribunal on preliminary issues cannot be assailed effectively by the petitioner. Hence, petitioner is given liberty to challenge the impugned order dated 11.11.2009, passed by the School Tribunal, after School Tribunal adjudicates the appeal on merits and comes to a 3 conclusion about the alleged date of termination in the matter. With that liberty, the writ petition is disposed of. All the contentions of petitioner and respondent no.2 are kept open for consideration at appropriate stage. The School Tribunal shall attempt to decide the appeal on merits, at the earliest. JUDGE Diwale