1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 18 OF 2008 (Purushottam Parasram Kumbhare .v. The Presiding Officer and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri R.S. Parsodkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.G. Jagtap, Advocate for the respondent Nos.2 to 4. Shri A.S. Sonare, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 and 5. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. 29TH JANUARY, 2008. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 1st October, 2007 vide which the application for stay to the order of termination came to be rejected by the learned Additional Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur (Chandrapur) in Appeal No.8/2005. The petitioner has preferred an appeal challenging the order of termination dated 31st January, 2007. Along with an appeal, an application for stay to the order of termination is also filed. The same is rejected. Hence the present petition. Shri R.S. Parsodkar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the 2 petitioner is working with the respondent-School for the period of more than ten years. It is submitted that abruptly the services of the petitioner have been terminated without holding any enquiry only on the ground that the approval has not been granted by the competent authority. He, therefore, submits that there is a fit case where the stay to the order of termination ought to have granted. Shri S.G. Jagtap, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Shri A.S. Sonare, the learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 5 submit that since the learned Tribunal has given reasons for rejecting the prayer for stay, no interference is warranted. The learned Tribunal while rejecting the application for stay to the order of termination has found that the relief which is claimed by the petitioner is by way of final relief and the same cannot be granted at the interim stage. It is further found by the learned Tribunal that if the petitioner succeeds in the appeal he can always be compensated monetarily. Shri S.G. Jagtap, the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Maharashtra Shikshan Sanstha, Nagpur and another .v. Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, 3 Nagpur and others (reported in 1995 (1) Mh.L.J., 875). In the said judgment, this Court has taken a view that though the learned Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant relief of stay to the termination, the said power has to be exercised in a very exceptional and compelling circumstances. From the perusal of the record, it cannot be said that there was any compelling or exceptional circumstances to grant the relief claimed by the petitioner. In any case, the petition is arising out of interlocutory order. Hence, I am not inclined to entertain the same in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition stands dismissed in limine. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, the learned Tribunal is directed to expedite the hearing and dispose of the same as far as possible within a period of six months from today. JUDGE *rrg.