1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2899 OF 2010. Sant Sadaram Maharaj Shikshan Sanstha. -: VERSUS :- Ku. Rupali Dattatraya Kale and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 19, 2010. Heard finally by consent of Shri P.B. Patil, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Anand Parchure with Shri Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Shri Jaiswal, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.3. Shri Patil, learned counsel states that respondent no.1 secured appointment fraudulently by tampering with resolution dated 31.08.2003. Respondent no.4 her father happens to be the Secretary and abusing his position, he inserted name of his daughter i.e. respondent no.1 and got her appointed as Assistant Teacher. The Education Officer conducted enquiry and found that there was fraud and as per the enquiry report dated 20.02.2010, recovery of salary paid to respondent no.1 through grants has been ordered. The management therefore, gave opportunity to respondent no.1 to place her say in the matter, but she refused to accept the 2 notice and also did not remain present at the time of hearing, hence on 15.04.2010, she was discontinued. Appeal was filed by her on 28.04.2010 and School Tribunal has on 30.04.2010 granted interim reinstatement. He states that such interim reinstatement which constitutes final relief could not have been awarded. Shri Jaiswal, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.3 is supporting the report placed by the Education Officer. Shri A. Parchure with Shri Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.1 states that the allegations about interpolation or fraud are incorrect. Respondent no.1 was not party to the enquiry by the education officer and order of termination dated 15.04.2010 is perse stigmatic and without any enquiry. The interlocutory order of School Tribunal should not be interfered with. With the assistance of learned counsel for the respective parties, I have perused the papers. Copies of original resolution dated 31.08.2003 and resolution as tampered are produced on record. The original resolution [as alleged] only mentions name of one Subhangi Gandhe (M.Sc., B.Ed.), while the alleged tampered resolution also contains name of present respondent. However, qualification of present respondent disclosed in that resolution is only B.A. The Education Officer has considered the relevant records and has found that said appointment was not proper. There is a finding that respondent no.1 has infact not engaged any classes and has not worked at all. Statement of some students appears to have been recorded. In this background, petitioner management appears to have called upon her to show cause on 3 12.04.2010 and respondent no.1 choose to remain absent and even did not accept the notice of hearing. The grant of interim reinstatement in these circumstances cannot be sustained. But it appears that respondent no.1 has been suddenly terminated and hence interest of justice can be met with by directing the School Tribunal to decide the appeal as early as possible and in any case within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order to it. Accordingly, the impugned order of School Tribunal dated 30.04.2010 is hereby quashed and set aside. The proceedings in Appeal No.32/2010 before the Tribunal are expedited. Parties to appear before the School Tribunal on next date of hearing and School Tribunal shall attempt to decide the appeal within a period of three months thereafter. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly. No costs. Needless to mention that the observations made by this court are only to indicate why interference in writ jurisdiction is felt necessary. Those observations shall not be binding on the School Tribunal and the School Tribunal shall independently apply its mind to find out whether principles of natural justice have been violated in the matter or not. JUDGE Rgd.