1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2546 OF 2010 The President Sharda Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha & others .. PETITIONERS VERSUS Machindra Vitthal Garje & another .. RESPONDENTS Mr. S.K. Shinde, Advocate for the petitioners. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 23rd MARCH, 2010 PER COURT : 1 An application tendered by the respondent / employee of the school seeking amendment to appeal memo came to be allowed by the school tribunal in view of order passed on 10-2-2010 and said interlocutory order passed during the continuance of the appeal no. 21/2008 pending before the school tribunal, Solapur is subject matter of challenge in this petition. 2 It is the contention of the petitioners that by virtue of amendment the respondent seeks to raise challenge in respect of the order of reversion 2 stated to have been issued on 11-3-2008. The application seeking amendment was presented on 25-8-2009. It is contended by the respondent / original appellant that the application seeking amendment is in respect of appeal which is barred by limitation. It is contended that the respondent / teacher cannot be permitted to raise claim by incorporating amendment which is time barred. It is the contention of the petitioner that the appeal was presented raising exception to the order of reversion within 30 days from the date of issuance of the order. However, the respondent preferred to raise challenge to the order relieving him from the post of Head Master and failed to challenge the order which is the basis of the subsequent order issued by the management. Infact, the challenge raised to the subsequent order in its fold includes the earlier order of reversion which is the basis of the further action. However, in order to avoid technical difficulties, the petitioner has requested the appellate court to permit the appellant to raise challenge to the earlier order of reversion issued by the management. 3 Learned counsel for the management contends that the order of reversion is dated 4-3-2008 however, the same has been wrongly mentioned as 11-3-2008. It is for the respondent to explain and the tribunal to take into account whether the date mentioned in the amendment application is the 3 date of receipt of order. Objection raised by the petitioner objecting the application seeking amendment to the memorandum of appeal has no merit. Petition raising exception to the interlocutory order passed by the tribunal does not call for any interference in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition therefore stands rejected. 4 In view of dismissal of petition, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp2546.10.odt