F. I. REBELLO, J.

( 1 ) THE matter was on board for final hearing for confirmation of interim relief. Considering the narrow controversy and as reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 4, the main petition was taken up for final hearing. Notices on respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were not served. However, considering the controversy, notice on them is dispensed with. A few facts may be mentioned. The State has filed the present petition to challenge the order dated 12-11-2003 and 2-6-2004 passed by the Acting Chairman, Maharashtra State human Rights Commission. The respondent no. 4 is the father of the Respondent No. 1, a teacher working in the school run by respondent No. 3 Society. From the record and the reply filed by Education Officer, Zilla parishad, it appears that Respondent No. 1 is the wife of Head Master of the School. Respondent no. 4 had filed complaint before the maharashtra State Human Rights Commission which was numbered as SHRC-09/2002/cr- 1581/adm/803. By communication addressed to Education Officer, the Petitioners were informed that the complaint had been received from respondent No. 4 and that the Acting chairperson had passed the following order. "perused complaint. The subject order of the complaint does not fall within the purview of the Commission. However, the complaint be transmitted to the Education officer, Buldhana for disposal at his end under the intimation to the complainant. The education Officer, shall however, submit the Action Taken Report to the Commission within three weeks from the receipt of this direction. "the forwarding letter contains a request to consider the complaint in accordance with law and submit further report about the action taken to the Commission preferably within the period of four weeks from the receipt of this letter. The order is dated 24-1-2003.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT no. 4 thereafter filed one more complaint which was numbered as shrc-05/2003/cr-978/legal. An order came to be passed on 12-11-2003. Some facts which are set out in the order are required to be reproduced as that would have a bearing on the matter. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:"the proposal for approval has been confirmed only on 27-5-2002. Shri. Bhise, education Officer fairly admits that the same has not yet been considered, Shri. Bhise therefore, agrees to give approval to the appointment of Sau. Shobha Kolte, Craft teacher with effect from June, 2002 in accordance with law. "the learned Acting Chairperson thereafter passed the impugned order, the relevant portion of which reads as under:"in view of the statement made by Education officer, Shri. Bhise, that necessary approval to the appointment of Sau. Shobha Kolte will be given, with consequential sanction for grants for the salary of the teacher, the commission directs that the time of 4 weeks is granted to submit, the compliance report by the Educational Officer. With this direction the case is disposed of. "the Petitioner thereafter submitted his compliance report. A prayer was made which reads as under:"on the strength of above ground, it is humbly prayed that, the complaint of petitioner and dependent Case No. 1581/ 2002 with Case No. 978/200 (alongwith directives of No. S. H. R. C. /09/2002 CR- 1581/adm-with No. S. H. R. C. /05/20q3/cr- 978/legal dated November/2003 May kindly be set aside and oblige. "the Education Officer in the compliance report pointed out that Respondent No. 1 had been appointed as Craft teacher with effect from 17-1-96 pursuant to an advertisement issued on 10-1-1996. The post was reserved for scheduled tribe and as such the appointment was against the backlog of reservation of scheduled Tribes. The appointment was continued from 17-1-1996 to the end of educational session 30-4-1997 and from 1-7- 1997 to 30-11-1998. The services of the respondent No. 1 were terminated from 01-12- 1998. Pursuant to the resolution of the Standing committee, the services of Respondent No. 1 were terminated