JUDGMENT :- Rule, returnable forthwith. 2. With consent of the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing. 3. The petitioners, Mis Saraswati Seva Sangh, has challenged the order passed by the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Thane, respondent No.1 herein, directing the petitioners to permit respondent No.4, Mr. Arunkumar R. Dubey, to function as the Headmaster of the School run by the petitioner Sangh. 4. A few facts, not in dispute, may be noticed - The School in question was earlier managed by respondent No.5, M/s Bombay Hindi Sahitya Parishad. It appears that the petitioner-Sangh took over management of the School but the permission of the Deputy Director of Education and the Charity Commissioner was not obtained. Be that as it may, Respondent No.4 who was then the Headmaster of the School was involved in a criminal case by the Anti-corruption Bureau in which it is alleged that he had accepted a bribe from a peon for regularising her service. Respondent No.4 was placed under suspension by the petitioner-Sangh. Respondent No.4 challenged the order of suspension before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 27th June, 2000 in Writ Petition No. 2947 of 2000, rejected the Writ Petition as the Court found that no interference was called for since an enquiry was pending against respondent No.4 herein. On 4th November, 2000, the petitioner-Sangh issued an order terminating the services of respondent No.4. It is not disputed before us that respondent No.4 did not prefer any Appeal before the School Tribunal against the order of termination. 5. It appears that thereafter on 25th September, 2001, the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Thane, passed the impugned order directing the petitioner-Sangh to permit respondent No.5 to function as the Headmaster of the School. We fail to understand what authority the Education Officer has to direct respondent No. 5-Parishad and the petitioner-Sangh to reinstate respondent No.4 as the Headmaster of the School when in a disciplinary proceeding, respondent No. 4 was found guilty, and the punishment of termination of service was inflicted upon him. Counsel for the State could not support the order of the Education Officer, but he submitted that the impugned order dated 25th September, 2001 may be treated only as a request and not as a command. 6. Counsel for the State could not support the order of the Education Officer, but he submitted that the impugned order dated 25th September, 2001 may be treated only as a request and not as a command. 6. We have perused the impugned order, and we find that the order passed by the Education Officer is in the nature of a direction to the petitioner-Sangh as well as respondent No.5, and it cannot be termed as a mere request. In the circumstances, we find that the impugned order passed by the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Thane, respondent No. 1 dated 25th September, 2001 is wholly without jurisdiction and must be set aside. We, accordingly, quash the impugned order. The quashing of the impugned order will not prevent respondent No. 4 from seeking appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. 7. Parties be supplied copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court. Petition allowed.