JUDGMENT :- By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati on 21-32002 allowing the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 and directing the petitioner to pay back wages to respondent No. 1 from 28-6-1993 till 14-7-1997 within a period of three months. 2. Few facts giving rise to the petition are stated thus - The respondent No. 1 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher by the petitioner in the year 1991 for the academic session 1991-92. Thereafter, by a subsequent appointment order the respondent No. 1 was continued as Assistant Teacher for the academic session 1992-93. The Education Officer refused to grant approval to the appointment of the respondent No.1 by an order dated 3-6-1993. The services of the respondent No. 1 were therefore, terminated by the petitioner. It was the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 was appointed against the vacancy which was created by the removal of one Mr. Gadhavale who had filed an appeal against his dismissal before the School Tribunal. 3. The respondent No. 1 challenged the order of his termination, dated 2610-1993 before the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati. The appeal was registered as Appeal No. 157/1993-A. During the pendency of the appeal, a pursis was filed by respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal on 15-3-1999. It was stated in the pursis that the respondent No. 1 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Zilla Parishad w.e.f. 14-7-1997, and hence he was not pressing the relief of reinstatement and was praying only for the back wages. The Tribunal decided the appeal filed by the respondent No.1 and directed the reinstatement of the respondent No.1 with continuity of service and back wags. A Writ petition was preferred by the petitioner before this Court and this Court by an order dated 28-8-2000 remanded the matter to the School Tribunal by allowing Writ Petition No. 6123/2000 with a direction to the Tribunal to examine the issue of back wages afresh and record a clear finding as to the entitlement of the respondent No. 1 to the same. 4. After the matter was remanded to the Tribunal, a preliminary objection was raised by the petitioner before the School Tribunal. 4. After the matter was remanded to the Tribunal, a preliminary objection was raised by the petitioner before the School Tribunal. It was stated in the preliminary objection that the Education Officer had refused to grant approval to the appointment of the respondent No.1 and in the meanwhile the appeal filed by Mr. Gadhavale, in whose place the respondent No.1 was appointed, was allowed by the Tribunal and Mr. Gadhavale had joined as an Assistant Teacher in the School. It was the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 could not have claimed back wages for the period during which Mr. Gadhavale had worked as an Assistant Teacher. Apart from the aforesaid objection, an objection was raised by the petitioner to the tenability of the appeal, as according to the petitioner, the appeal was not tenable only for the purpose of recovery of arrears of salary as the respondent No. 1 had given up his claim for reinstatement. It appears that the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati did not decide the aforesaid preliminary objections and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 directing the petitioner to pay full back wages to the respondent No.1 from 28-61993 till 14-7-1997 on the ground that the petitioners had not adduced any evidence to show that the respondent No.1 was gainfully employed and was not entitled to back wages. 5. Shri S. P. Dharmadhikari, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the School Tribunal committed serious error in not considering the objections raised by the petitioner. According to learned Senior Counsel the preliminary objections raised by the petitioners went to the root of the matter and in case the objections were upheld the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 would have been dismissed as not tenable. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the appeal could not have been entertained under the provisions of section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act 1977, simply for claiming back wages as the respondent No.1 had given up the claim for reinstatement by the pursis dated 15-3-1999. 6. None appears on behalf of respondent No.1. Though served. 7. Shri Ahirkar, the learned AGP appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and 3 also did not support the order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati on 21-3-2002 in view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. 8. 6. None appears on behalf of respondent No.1. Though served. 7. Shri Ahirkar, the learned AGP appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and 3 also did not support the order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati on 21-3-2002 in view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. 8. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the preliminary objections raised by the petitioners before the Tribunal along with the judgment dated 21-3-2002. It is rightly submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the preliminary objection went to the root of the matter and it was necessary for the Tribunal to have considered the preliminary objection before deciding the issue of back wages. The reason recorded by the Tribunal for not considering the first preliminary objection is unreasonable. The second preliminary objection raised by the petitioner about the tenability of the appeal has not been considered by the Tribunal and no reason is recorded by the Tribunal for not considering the same. It was the duty of the Tribunal to have considered both the preliminary objections before deciding the issue of back wages. The judgment of the School Tribunal is unsustainable. 9. In the result the writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgment passed by the School Tribunal on 21-3-2002 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the School Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh on merits, after considering the preliminary objections raised by the petitioners. Since the matter is an old one, the Presiding Officer is directed to decide the same as early as possible and positively within a period of four months from the date of the appearance of the parties before the School Tribunal. The petitioner undertakes to remain present before the School Tribunal on 4-1-2010. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.