1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8343 OF 2009 Prakash s/o Dnyaoba Falke .. PETITIONER VERSUS Hanumant s/o Anant Arekar & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. C.K. Shinde, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Y.M. Kshirsagar, AGP for the State. Mr. S.S. Jadhawar, Advocate or respondent no. 2. Mr. M.B. Kolpe, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 5. Mr. A.S. More, Advocate for respondent no. 3. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 7th APRIL, 2010 PER COURT : 1 This petition can be disposed of by issuing certain directions in respect of the pending appeal presented before the Presiding Officer, school tribunal, Solapur. 2 Petitioner herein was serving as a teacher with the institution run by respondent no. 2. The services of the petitioner came to be terminated. As such, he approached the tribunal by presenting appeal bearing no. 37/2008 2 and it is stated that the appeal presented by the petitioner is pending for final disposal. Respondent no. 1 was also an employee of the school and his services are also stated to have been terminated and, as such, he has also approached the school tribunal by presenting appeal bearing no.60/09. It is the contention of the petitioner that there are only four sanctioned posts in the school and the petitioner as well as respondent no. 1 are claiming entitlement in respect of the fourth post available with the institution. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the report tendered by the Education Officer wherein it has been mentioned that the date of appointment of respondent no. 1 is 30-6-2003 whereas the date of appointment of the petitioner is 23-7-2003. However, according to the petitioner, this fact has not been reflected in the orders issued by the institution. It is also contention of the petitioner that respondent no. 1 is son in law of the Chairman of the institution and, as such, the institution is not serious in prosecuting the appeal presented by respondent no. 1. In these circumstances, the petitioner presented an application seeking his impleadment as respondent in the pending appeal presented by respondent no. 1. The application was opposed by respondent no. 1 as well as the management of the institution and, after considering the contentions raised by the respective parties, the school tribunal rejected the application. 3 It is recorded by the Presiding Officer of the tribunal while rejecting the application that the petitioner herein is not a necessary party to the appeal presented by respondent no. 1. 3 I have perused the application as well as the impugned order passed by the school tribunal, Solapur. I have also heard arguments advanced by respective counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the institution has contended that the institution has presented written reply to the appeal presented by respondent no. 1 and the institution is very much serious in opposing the prayer made in the appeal. My attention has been invited to the report of the Education Officer wherein it is noted that respondent no. 1 has acquired educational qualification in June 2003. It is also contended that the date of appointment of respondent no. 1 is 30-6-2003. Learned counsel for the institution contends that all the steps would be taken for prosecuting both the appeals. Taking into consideration all the relevant circumstances, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the tribunal is directed to decide both the pending appeals i.e. Appeal no. 37/2008 and 60/2009 simultaneously. The tribunal will obviously take into consideration the contentions those would be raised by the petitioner in support of his case and will decide the issues involved in the matter including 4 the issue in respect of entitlement of the petitioner or respondent no. 1 to the post available with the institution. The tribunal is expected to consider all the issues including the controversy in respect of date of appointment as well as the question raised by the petitioner in respect of seniority considering the date of appointment. In the circumstances noted above, it is not necessary to cause interference in the impugned order passed by the tribunal. The petition therefore stands rejected. The tribunal is directed to dispose of the pending appeals expeditiously and pronounce judgment at onces in both the matters. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp8343.09.odt