1.0 By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.03.2000 passed by the Education Tribunal in Application No. 166 of 1989 whereby the matter was ordered to be restored though the application was withdrawn by the respondent No.1 way back in the year 1989.
2.0 The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent No. 1 was appointed in the petitioner School as a Peon and he was suspended because of serious charges against him. Therefore, the respondent No.1 filed an application before the Secondary Education Tribunal being Application No. 8 of 1989. Since the management terminated the services of the respondent No.1, he filed another application No. 166 of 1989 challenging the order of dismissal and the same was pending before the Tribunal. Another application being Application d 1076 of 1988 was also filed by the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 filed purshis on 29.11.1990 for withdrawal of all the applications as the settlement has arrived at between the parties. The petitioner management had signed the purhis for withdrawal but in fact, no settlement was made between the parties. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 filed two more applications being Nos. 96 of 1991 and 137 of 1991 for restoration of two applications being Application No. 8 of 1989 and 1076 of 1988. The Tribunal after hearing all the parties, on the Restoration Application at the interim stages, passed a detailed order dated 18.10.1991 by stating that on the restoration of the application, all the parties are required to be heard at length. Without there being any notice for the restoration, the main application No. 166 of 1989 was heard by the Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed the application and ordered that the Management should reinstate the applicant with full backwages with continuity of service. The said order was challenged before this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No. 6127 of 1997 and the petition was allowed by remanding back to the Tribunal directing to proceed further from the stage it was left on 18.10.1991. The Tribunal vide order dated 10.03.2000 restored the matter and ordered to place the main matter for hearing. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
3.0 The Tribunal while considering the case has restored the matter and the matter is required to be heard on merits. If the matter is heard on merits no prejudice is likely to be caused since the matter was disposed of on technical ground. Therefore, the Tribunal itself has recalled the matter. No illegality is committed by the Tribunal. The petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*