: 1 : wp.6334.2010 vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6334 OF 2010 Hanumant Somnath Shiketod .. Petitioner V/s. Barsi Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Barsi & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.G Kudle for the Petitioner Mr.S.S. Shah for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 Mrs.S.S. Bhende, AGP, for Resp. Nos.3 & 4 CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED: NOVEMBER 8, 2011 P.C.: 1. Heard Mr.Kudle, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Surel Shah, appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mrs.Bhende, the learned AGP, for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. 2. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for directions to regularise his service as an assistant teacher with Respondent No.2 school in the light of the Government Resolution dated 10.6.2005. The petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.5917 of 2009 for the very same relief. The petition was : 2 : wp.6334.2010 rejected on 9.11.2009. 3. Admittedly, on 11.9.2009, the petitioner was discontinued and therefore, he had filed Appeal No.68 of 2009 before the School Tribunal to challenge the order of termination as well as for the demand of reinstatement in service. The said appeal came to be dismissed on 21.6.2011. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the School Tribunal dismissing Appeal No.68 of 2009 in Writ Petition No.5925 of 2011 and the petition is pending for admission. 4. In our considered opinion, this petition for regularisation of service cannot be entertained at this stage and it will be for the petitioner to take out appropriate application in the pending petition or in any other proceedings and subject to the final outcome in the said petition i.e. Writ Petition No.5925 of 2011. 5. Hence, the petition is rejected. However, we make it clear that Writ Petition No.5925 of 2011 will have to be heard on its own merits for the reliefs prayed for including the relief of consequential benefits. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)