(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Civil Application No. 11878 of 2009 (In Writ Petition No. 631 of 2008) Ashok s/o. Deoram Ohol, Age : 43 years, Occupation : Service, serving as Head Master, Rural High School and Jr. College, Puntamba, Taluka : Rahata, District : Ahmednagar. .. Applicant. versus 1. The Secretary, Governing Body of the Educational Institution of the Bombay Annual Conference of the Methodist Church in South Asia, 1st Floor, 21 Y.M.C.A. Road, Mumbai Central, Mumbai - 400 008, through Shri Namdeo Laxman Karkare, Age : 54 years, Occupation : Priest and Secretary, R/o. as above. (2) 2. The Manager, Rural High School and Jr. College, Puntamba, Taluka : Rahata, District : Ahmednagar, through Shri Issac s/o. Pundlik Khatgaonkar, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Manager and District President, R/o. As above. 3. Dinkar s/o. Bhivaji Tribhuvan, Age : 48 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Puntamba, Taluka : Rahata, District : Ahmednagar. 4. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. .. Respondents. .......................... Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Advocate, holding for Mr. S.D. Karkare, Mr. A.S. Usmanpurkar and Mr. P.B. Shirsath, Advocates, for the applicant. Mr. K.S. Bhore, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. V.S. Bedre, Advocate, for respondent no.3. Mr. S.N. Kendre, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.4. .......................... (3) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 23RD NOVEMBER 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. By way of present application, the applicant is seeking an interim relief, that the respondent no.3 be restrained from dispossessing the petitioner from his post of Head Master or interfering or causing hindrance to the post of Head Master in any manner. 2. The present application is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The order of grant of interim relief was challenged by the respondent no.3 herein by way of Letters Patent Appeal No. 157/2009. The Division Bench, while allowing the appeal, has observed thus : " The order dismissing the appeal by the School Tribunal was incapable of being executed. In such circumstances, no stay could have been granted to an order which is incapable of execution as it would amount to granting a final relief to a party at the stage of admission of the petitioner. Granting of such interim relief amounting to final relief in the present case was not, according to us, a rare and an exceptional case warranting the granting of such interim relief. The petitioner's appeal challenging his termination came to be dismissed and by virtue of the (4) interim relief, the clock is put back and the petitioner is enjoying the status quo which was existing prior to his termination. In such circumstances, therefore, according to us the granting of the interim relief at the stage of admission was not warranted in the facts of the present case. The aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge dated 29-1-2008 granting the ad interim relief and the subsequent order dated 26-11-2008 confirming the aforesaid relief, no doubt, on certain conditions, was unwarranted. " 3. Inspite of these observations being there, the petitioner has again approached this court, by way of present Civil Application, seeking a relief that the respondent no.3 be restrained from dispossessing the petitioner from the post of Head Master. 4. In my considered view, when an appellate court has vacated the interim relief which was granted by this court earlier, an application for seeking almost identical relief, is not only impermissible but it is against the judicial propriety also. When an order passed by this court is set aside by an appellate court, the remedy for the applicant would have been to go further and not before the lower court which had earlier granted interim relief. As already observed herein above, the present application is nothing but an abuse of process of law. (5) 5. Hence, the application is rejected. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/ca11878