1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3319 OF 2008 (Yavatmal District Akhil Kunbi Samaj vs. Presiding Officer, ST, Amravati & Ors.) 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. OCTOBER 08, 2008. I have heard Shri Narwade, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Kothari, AGP for respondent No. 1 & 2 and Shri Mirza, learned counsel for respondent No.3. One of the questions is whether Respondent No.3 has entered the services validly i.e. in accordance with law. The issue needs to be considered by the School Tribunal in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Anna Manikrao Pethe vs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, reported at 1997 (3) Mh. L.J. 697. The only consideration of said issue by the School Tribunal in para 16 is not in appropriate details. Shri Mirza, learned counsel has produced today an affidavit of Respondent No.3 to state that after advertising he applied in response thereto, was interviewed and was given appointment order. Shri Narwade, learned counsel points out 2 that these facts are not pleaded in appeal memo and School Tribunal has not considered these facts. He further states that the School Tribunal has relied upon the resolution of Committee in favour of present Respondent No.3 and that resolution is prior to the advertisement dated 1.8.2001. In these circumstances, I find it appropriate to remand the matter back to the School Tribunal with liberty to the parties to amend their pleadings appropriately so as to enable the School Tribunal to consider the issue in accordance with law. Shri Mirza, learned counsel states that Respondent No.3 has actually worked in School for number of years, his name is mentioned in muster and also in inspections conducted by the Education Officer from time to time. However, relevance of all these facts can be considered by the School Tribunal while deciding the issue of legality or otherwise of Respondent No.3 in view of various judgments in the matter. Shri Mirza, learned counsel further states that Respondent No.3 has worked for 10 years and hence the order of School Tribunal granting him reinstatement should allowed to operate for three months. 3 However, since Respondent No.3 is out of employment as on today, I am not inclined to grant that request. Thus, the impugned judgment of the School Tribunal dated 04.04.2008 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the School Tribunal for deciding the questions in accordance with law after the parties amend their pleadings. As the matter is old, School Tribunal shall endeavour to decide the appeal as early as possible and in any case by 31st March 2009. Writ Petition is disposed accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.