Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Both the petitions are heard finally with the consent of the parties. Since the issues involved in both these petitions, are almost identical, they are being heard together and are decided by this common judgment.

2] The petitioner in Writ Petition no.4242/2004, is the employee and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4532/2004 is the management who had terminated the services of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.4242/2004. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.4242/2004 was appointed as Assistant Thacher by the management on 6.11.1981 in a post earmarked for the Scheduled Tribe Category. The Assistant Teacher claimed to be belonging to Halba Caste. The Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur however, invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner by an order dated 19.8.2003. The Assistant Teacher who was at the relevant time working as Headmistress filed Writ Petition before this court against the order dated 20.8.2003,, but the writ petition was dismissed and the Assistant Teacher was permitted to make a representation to the management. The Assistant Teacher made a representation to the Management but the same was rejected and her services were terminated by an order dated 9.10.2003. The Assistant Teacher who was at the relevant time working as Headmistress challenged the order of termination before the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools [Conditions of Services Regulation] Act 1977. The Presiding Officer, School tribunal, Nagpur by the impugned order dated 28.6.2004 partly allowed the appeal and directed the management to reinstate the Assistant Teacher in service with continuity of service and full back wages. The management is aggrieved by the order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur on 28.6.2004 so far as it directs the management to reinstate the Assistant Teacher in service with continuity in service and full back wages and has therefore filed Writ Petition No.4532/2004. Since the employee was directed to be reinstated on the post of Assistant Teacher and not on the post of Headmistress which she was holding at the relevant time, the Assistant Teacher has filed Writ Petition No.4242/2004 challenging the judgment passed by the Tribunal on 28.6.2004.

3] Shri S.R. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the management submitted that the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal was not justified in reinstating the Assistant Teacher in service with continuity of service and full back wages as her caste claim was invalidated by an order passed by the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee on 20.8.2003 and no sooner than the caste claim of the Assistant Teacher was invalidated the management had a right to terminate her services. The learned counsel for the management submitted that the benefit of the government resolution dated 15.6.1995 or the government resolution dated 30.6.2004 could not have been availed by the Assistant Teacher in view of the decision of the Three Judges Bench of the Hon. Supreme Court reported in 2008 (2) Mh.L.J. page 720 [Union of India ..vs.. Dattatraya Namdeo Mendhekar & others] as also the two Full Bench decisions of this court reported in 2009 (5) Mh.L.J. Page. 482 [Vandana Bhazrat Kauthalkikar ..vs.. State of Maharashtra & others] and 2009 (2) Mh.L.J. Page 788 [Ganesh Rambhau Khalale ..vs.. State of Maharashtra & others. The learned counsel for the management submitted that this court has held in the judgment reported in 2009(2) ALL MR 867[ Sunil Ingle ..vs.. Zilla Parishad & another] that the government resolution dated 15.6.1995 in terms violates the fundamental rights guaranteed by articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and therefore, the High Court will not be justified in issuing its writ for enforcement of such invalid government resolution. According to the learned counsel for the management the Tribunal committed a serious error in allowing the appeal filed b