JUDGMENT - B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.:---Heard advocates for the parties. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2.The petitioner society has challenged the order dated 10.11.1995 and 7-1-1997 passed by the School Tribunal, Nashik. The respondent Shri Rajendra Pandharinath Patil was working as a teacher at Nutan Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Waini Sendhi, Malkheda, Taluka-Chopda, District-Dhule. As the strength of students in VIII and IX standard of the same school was reduced, the authorities directed the closure of those two classes. Accordingly, the respondent No. 1 came to be declared as a surplus teacher and by order dated 6-2-1995 passed by the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, he was called upon to report at L.N. Sarvajanik Vidyalaya, Jalgaon, as a teacher. A separate order came to be passed on 10-2-1995 that the respondent No. 1 was declared as a surplus teacher. By order dated 17-2-1995, the Head Master of the petitioner-society, informed the respondent No. 1 that he was relieved on 17-2-1995 to report for duty at L.N. Sarvajanik Vidyalaya, Jalgaon. 3.It seems that the respondent No. 1 filed Appeal No. 11 of 1995 before the School Tribunal at Nashik alleging illegal termination of his services and claimed that the letter dated 17-2-1995 was an order of termination. Though notices were sent to the present petitioner by the School Tribunal, it appears that the management did not remain present before the School Tribunal and by an ex parte order dated 10-11-1995, the appeal was allowed and the respondent No. 1 was directed to be continued in service of the present petitioner-management. The petitioner approached the School Tribunal and filed Misc. Application No. 1 of 1996 for restoration and prayed that the ex parte order dated 10-11-1995 be set aside, and the Appeal No. 11 of 1995 be restored. However, by order dated 7-1-1997, the application filed by the management came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4.On hearing the learned Counsel for the respective parties, it is clear that the respondent No. 1 was declared as a surplus teacher and he was required to attend the duties in L.N. Sarvajanik Vidyalaya, Jalgaon, by the authorities in pursuance of the said directives, the petitioner society relieved by order dated 17-2-1995. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4.On hearing the learned Counsel for the respective parties, it is clear that the respondent No. 1 was declared as a surplus teacher and he was required to attend the duties in L.N. Sarvajanik Vidyalaya, Jalgaon, by the authorities in pursuance of the said directives, the petitioner society relieved by order dated 17-2-1995. Under the circumstances, prima-facie there is merit in the contentions of the petitioner-society that the School Tribunal proceeded on totally erroneous grounds and without verifying the facts, the ex parte order dated 10-11-1995 has been passed. The further grievance of the petitioner that the Misc. Application No. 1 of 1996 ought to have been allowed by restoring the Appeal No. 11 of 1996 is also, prima-facie, just and proper. However, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner could not give justifying reason as to why the petitioner did not appear before the School Tribunal when the notices were issued in Appeal No. 11 of 1995. 5.In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the matter deserves to be remanded to the School Tribunal for fresh adjudication. The impugned orders cannot be sustained and the petitioner-management deserves to be given an opportunity to put the facts in their right perspectives before the School Tribunal so as to contest the claim of the respondent No. 1. We accordingly quash and set aside the impugned orders passed by the School Tribunal. It is further directed that Appeal No. 11 of 1996 be restored and the same be adjudicated afresh by giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-society. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case we saddle the society with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/-. It is made clear that Appeal No. 11 of 1996 shall not be restored unless the amount of Rs. 10,000/-. is paid by the petitioner to the respondent No. 1 by cheque and/or demand draft, within a period of four weeks from today. The School Tribunal is directed to decide Appeal No. 11 of 1996, within a period of three months, after it is restored. Rule is accordingly made absolute.