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 o