M. S. PARIKH, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Service of rule waived by Mr. Sanjanwala and Ms. Kathaben gajjar, Ld. AGP for the respondents. The petitioner school management seeks to challenge impugned order dated 12/5/1994 Annexure-F rendered by respondent No. 1 - D. E. O. and impugned order dated 24/5/1994 rendered by the learned Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal No. 2 in Appeal no. 5 of 1994. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are: The respondent no. 3 was placed under suspension pending inquiry against her in respect of alleged miscondcuct and misappropriation on or around 15/6/1992. Thereafter on 6/7/1992 respondent no. 1 - D. E. O. Ratified the said order by virtue of sec. 36 (3) of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972 (for short the act ). On 9/7/1992 the respondent no. 3 filed Application No. 366 of 1992 before the secondary Education Tribunal challenging the aforesaid suspension order and the said petition is pending. On 9/3/1994 the Inquiry Committee, after holding the inquiry into the misconduct of respondent no. 3, submitted its report holding the delinquent guilty of the charges. However, this is a majority report, one out of three members deciding in favour of the respondent no. 3. In reply to the notice for rendering explanation issued on or about 15/3/1994. The respondent no. 3 submitted her explanation on 18/3/1994. The petitioner - management passed order of panalty of dismissal as per resolution no. 3 and approached the D. E. O. on or around 2/4/1994 for his approval of the proposed action under sec. 36 (1) (b) of Act. The D. E. O. passed impugned order dated 12/5/1994, and while declining to accord approval to the proposed action, directed the school-management to allow the respondent no. 3 to discharge her duties. The petitioner management filed Appeal No. 5 of 1994 before the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal No. 2 and the learned Tribunal passed order dated 24/5/1994 rejecting interim relief of staying the impugned order dated 12/5/1994. rendered by the D. E. O. Under such circumantances both the aforesaid order have been subjected to challenge in this petition. ( 3 ) SHORT question is whether the learned Tribunal should have stayed the impugned order of D. E. O. or has rightly refused to stay the order of the D. E. O. The order of the d. E. O. , then, indicate the respondent no. ( 3 ) SHORT question is whether the learned Tribunal should have stayed the impugned order of D. E. O. or has rightly refused to stay the order of the D. E. O. The order of the d. E. O. , then, indicate the respondent no. 3 should be immediately reinstated and should be permitted to perform her duties, ( 4 ) WHEN notice was issued in this petition following order was passed :"notice returnable on 11/6/1994. Ad-interim stay in term of para. 10 (c) on condition mat tha. srespondent no. 3 is paid full salary from the date of order passed "by D. E. O. K. B. Pujara states that full salary is being paid to 3rd respondent. It is directed that the same shall be continued till further orders. D. S. permitted. " ( 5 ) I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the rival parties and the Ld. A. G. P. It is important to note on prima-facia consideration of the case that the D. E. O. has not acorded his approval to the proposed action of dismissal and dismissal has not set in. The learned Secondary Education Tribunal is seized of the matter pending final disposal. Under such circumstances the principles for grant of interim relief would call for passing of the following order. It is settled law that the question of grant or refusal of interim relief in a quasi judicial proceedings involves exercise of judicial discretion has to be exercised with vigilence and circumspection according to justice, common sense and sound judgment. The discretion is to know through law what is just. Reference in this connection may be made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Lonand Gram pnchayat vs. Ramgiri Gosavi and Anr. reported in AIR 1968 SC p. 222. In the present case the dismissal of the respondent No. 3 has not finally set in. Bearing in mind these basic principles and bearing in mind the balance of convenience and having regard to the peculiar facts of the case as also the first order passed in this petition, it would be just and proper to finally dispose of this petition as indicated below. ( 6 ) BY way of interim arrangement during the pendency of the petitioners Appeal no. 5 of 1994 before the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal, the respondent no. 3 mrs. ( 6 ) BY way of interim arrangement during the pendency of the petitioners Appeal no. 5 of 1994 before the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal, the respondent no. 3 mrs. Ashaben S. Dixit shall be allowed to discharge her duties in the school, however only for teaching work in the capacity in which she last worked as such. Obviously she will be paid her full salary as is being done now. This order is passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of all the parties. The Tribunal is directed to hear the appeal and any other application or proceedings connected with the respondent No. 3s suspension and/or dismissal as expeditiously as possible. With this modification of the impugned orders, rule is discharged. No order as to costs. .