(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 5629 OF 2009 1. Vidyashakti Shikshan Sanstha, Parbhani, through its President, Suryakant Mukundrao Hake, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Agriculture and Social Worker, R/o. Ganesh Nagar, Parbhani, Taluka & District : Parbhani. 2. Adarsh Vidyalaya, Karegaon Road, Parbhani, Through its Head Master (Incharge), Amitabh s/o. Madhavrao Naik, Aged : 36 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Parbhani, Taluka & District : Parbhani. .. Petitioners. versus 1. Bhaskar s/o. Ramrao Bengal, Age : 44 years, Occupation : Service, As Assistant Teacher, Adarsh Vidyalaya, Karegaon Road, Parbhani. 2. The Education Officer, Secondary Education, Zilla Parishad, Parbhani. .. Respondents. (2) .......................... Mr. H.V. Patil, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. R.J. Godbole, Advocate, for respondent no.1, caveator. Smt. S.D. Shelke, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.2. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 7TH DECEMBER 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 24th July 2009, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Latur, below Exhibit 45, in Appeal No. 72/2007, thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner for stay to the proceedings of the appeal till conclusion of the enquiry proceedings. 2. The petitioner had filed appeal, being Appeal No. 72/2007 before the School Tribunal, challenging his supersession on the ground that his claim for appointment as Head Master was denied by the management. 3. It appears that thereafter, the management terminated (3) services of the petitioner. Challenging the said termination, the respondent no.1 herein had filed Appeal No. 30/2008 before the School Tribunal. The said appeal was allowed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 17th June 2008. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner herein approached this court by way of Writ Petition No. 1553/2009. This court vide order dated 22nd June 2009, allowed the petition and permitted the petitioner management to conduct a fresh enquiry against the respondent employee, in accordance with law. Vide the said order, the respondent employee was also directed to be treated under suspension. 4. Mr. H.V. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that since an enquiry, as permitted by this court vide order dated 22nd June 2009, is proceeding, it was necessary in the interest of justice, that the proceedings in Appeal No. 72/2007 should be stayed till completion of the enquiry. 5. Mr. R.J. Godbole, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1, on the contrary, submits that the issue involved in both the proceedings are different. In Appeal No. 72/2007, the question is whether the respondent employee, who was senior, was denied his legitimate claim of appointment as Head Master. He submits that even if the respondent employee is terminated at the conclusion of the enquiry and since now he is only put under suspension, he would be entitled to all consequential benefits of being Head Master, in the event, appeal challenging supersession is allowed. 6. I find that the issues in both the appeal are totally different. (4) In Appeal No. 72/2007, the issue involved is whether the claim of the respondent employee has been denied and a person junior to him has been promoted as Head Master. In any case, the appeal challenging supersession is admittedly prior in time than the appeal filed before the learned Tribunal challenging termination of the petitioner. 7. In that view of the matter, no infirmity could be found with the approach adopted by the learned Tribunal, so as to warrant interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Hence, the petition is dismissed. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp5629