Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. The Writ Petition No. 6105 of 2012 is filed by the original respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Appeal No. 43 of 2010 decided by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Latur Region, Latur on 2nd December, 2011.

The Writ Petition No. 3100 of 2012 only takes exception to the clause (3) of the operative part of the judgment and order dated 2nd December, 2011 in Appeal No. 43 of 2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Latur. By the clause (3), the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal has ordered that, the appellant shall be treated under suspension from the date of order i.e. 2nd December, 2011 passed by the School Tribunal till the completion of the enquiry and shall be entitled to subsistence allowance as per Rule for the said period. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3100 of 2012 who is the respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No. 6105 of 2012, is the original appellant before the School Tribunal, therefore, for convenience, the parties will be referred to as 'original appellant" and "original respondents".

3. The original appellant filed Appeal No. 43 of 2010 before the School Tribunal, Latur Region, Latur challenging his termination of his services. Original respondent Nos. 1 and 2 terminated services of the original appellant from 25th August, 2010. The appellant contended before the School Tribunal that, he is possessing the requisite qualification to be appointed as Assistant Teacher and was appointed as Assistant Teacher by the respondents by following due procedure of law on 1st October, 1991. His services were confirmed and he is the senior most teacher prior to the issuance of dismissal order. It was further contended by the appellant that, the respondent management runs two schools (1) Aadarsh Vidyalaya, Parbhani (2) Holkar Vidyalaya at Khadki, Tq. Sengaon, Dist. Hingoli. One Mr. Saste A.B. was appointed on 2nd December, 1991 as Headmaster at Holkar Vidyalaya although he is junior in service to the appellant. It was told to the appellant that, Mr. Saste was appointed as in charge Headmaster only. It is further case of the appellant that, one Mr. Naik who is close relative of the respondent No.1 came to be appointed as in charge Headmaster ignoring the seniority and legitimate right of the appellant for the post of Headmaster. It was further case of the appellant that, Mr. Saste and Mr. Naik were appointed without following procedure laid down in M.E.P.S. Act and Rules. On 25th November, 2005 letter was addressed by the appellant to the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Parbhani calling therein, for appointing him as Headmaster considering seniority list existed on the date of vacancy arose due to demise of Mane Mohan Vitthalrao. It was contended by the appellant that, time and again he requested the respondent management to promote him as Headmaster but except oral assurance, the respondent management remained inactive and continued Mr. Naik as in charge Headmaster. It was alleged by the appellant that, the respondent management time and again extended threats to him that, he will be discontinued from service in case he agitates his grievance again and again. It is the case of the appellant that, since the appellant refused to relinquish his right over the post of Headmaster, the respondent management started issuing notices to the appellant so as to remove the him from services of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The appellant preferred Appeal No. 72 of 2007 before the School Tribunal praying therein, for appointing him as Headmaster, however, the respondent management asked the appellant to withdraw the said appeal. The appellant refused to withdraw the said appeal. It is the case of the appellant that, said refusal of withdrawal of the appeal resulted in issuance of show cause notice on 31st August, 2008 to the appellant by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The said notice was duly replied by the appellant on 9th Septembe