:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1036 OF 2008 Smt. Jadhav Sujata Dhondiba ..Petitioner Vs. Shri Bapdev Shikshan Sanstha and ors. ..Respondents Mrs. Anita A. Agarwal for petitioner. Mr. S.K. Chinchlikar, AGP for respondent no.3. Mr. Vinay D. Borwankar for respondent nos.4 and 5. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : February 27, 2008. Date : February 27, 2008. Date : February 27, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties i.e. the petitioner and respondent nos.4 and 5. The learned AGP appears for respondent no.3. 2. The petitioner has filed Appeal No. 59 of 2006 alleging illegal termination of her service as an Assistant Teacher from 11/3/2006 by respondent nos.1 and 2 and she has filed the appeal sometimes in June 2006. However, before she filed the appeal respondent no.4 came to be appointed as Shikshan Sevak in her place (as she claims) on 28/3/2006 onwards and, :2: therefore, the petitioner impleaded him as the necessary party in the said appeal. The respondent no.4 submitted three different applications on the same day i.e. the applications at Exhs. 76, 77 and 78. The application at Exh.76 is for deleting his name from the array of respondents, whereas the application at Exh.77 is for framing the issue of jurisdiction and the third application at Exh.78 is for framing the preliminary issue of limitation. On 13/12/2007 the learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal at Pune passed the following order on the said applications:- ". Perused say. Heard Shri Sabnis advocate. In fact today matter is for arguments on Exh.76, 77 and 78 and so the matter can be heard even in absence of respondent nos.1 and 2’s Advocate. Now, Shri Sabnis submitted that those three applications may be heard alongwith Exh.1. Hence, adjournment is granted." 3. Mrs. Agarwal the learned counsel for the :3: petitioner submitted that when the respondent no.4 himself applied for deleting his name, the same could be on his risk and consequences and once such an application is allowed, the remaining two applications will not survive. She, therefore, submitted that the order passed on 13/12/2007 by the School Tribunal and as quoted hereinabove, creates an anomalous and uncertain situation. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 and 5 stated across the bar that he has instructions not to press for the applications filed at Exhs.76, 77 and 78. 5. Hence, the applications at Exhs. 76, 77 and 78 filed in Appeal No.59 of 2006 presently pending before the School Tribunal at Pune are hereby disposed as not pressed and the appeal to proceed further as per law. 6. With these clarifications, the petition is disposed off. :4: (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)