1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3590 OF 2010 The President, Shetkari Shikshan Mandal, Dholgarwadi, Tal. Chandgad. ... Petitioner v/s Mallappa Jotiba Sutar & ors. ... Respondents Mr.A.R.Belge for the petitioner. Mr.M.S.Topkar for respondent No.1. Mr.Suresh N. Bhosale for respondent No.4. Mr.S.S. Pakale for respondent No.5. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 13TH JANUARY, 2011 P.C.: 1. The petition has been filed against the order passed by the School Tribunal on 19.8.2009 in Appeal No.7 of 2005. The appeal was filed by respondent No.1 herein against the otherwise termination of his service with effect from 8.2.2005. The School Tribunal has found that the order of otherwise termination dated 8.2.2005 was illegal, void and 2 bad in law. The order has been quashed and set aside. A further direction was given to respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 in the appeal that the first respondent should be reinstated in service in his original post with full back wages and continuity with effect from 8.2.2005. While doing so, the Tribunal further directed the Education Officer to recover salary paid to respondent No.4 and to give approval to the appointment of respondent No.1 with retrospective effect. The Education Officer has granted liberty to lodge a police complaint against respondent No.4 in the appeal who is respondent No.5 in the petition. Aggrieved by the order, respondent No.5 herein preferred Writ Petition No.8699 of 2009. While admitting the writ petition, this Court has granted ad-interim relief by staying the directions to recover the salary from respondent No.4 i.e. respondent No.5 in this petition and the direction to grant an approval with retrospective effect as well as the filing of the police complaint. At the same time, it is made clear that the question of granting an approval to respondent No.1 in that petition, who is also respondent No.1 herein, should be considered by the Education Officer in accordance with law and on merits. 2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the entire dispute arose when the petitioner was not in the 3 picture as the school run by respondent Nos.1 and 2 was taken over by the petitioner much later. It is therefore submitted that the order dated 17.2.2009 as well as the order which is impugned herein cannot be complied simultaneously. The learned advocate submits that the institution cannot be expected to implement two contrary orders. It is submitted further that there is only one post and it is not possible to continue the petitioner and respondent No. 5 herein, on the same post. 3. In my opinion, there is no such contradiction. The right to recover the amount paid to respondent No.5, the approval being granted with retrospective effect to respondent No.1 and the direction to the education officer to lodge a police complaint have been stayed in the earlier writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No.8699 of 2009. There is no direction at all that the other clauses in the operative part of the School Tribunal should not be complied. 4. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. ..... 4