JUDGMENT Z.A. Haq, J. 1. Heard Mr. Chitle, learned Advocate, holding for Mr. A.A. Naik, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Maheshwari, learned Advocate, holding for Mr. Anand Parchure, learned Advocate for respondent no.3 and Mr. N.S. Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 and 2. 2. The petitioner-management has challenged the order passed by the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, allowing the appeal filed by respondent no.3 and directing his reinstatement in service. The learned Divisional Social Welfare Officer has not granted the prayer regarding back wages in favour of respondent no.3. 3. Mr. Chitle, learned Advocate for the petitioners has raised various grounds on merits. However, the submission about the authority of the Divisional Social Welfare Officer to entertain and decide the appeal filed by respondent no.3 is sufficient to dispose of the writ petition. 4. Respondent no.3 had filed appeal before the School Tribunal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, 1977, which was dismissed by order dated 27/04/2001. Being aggrieved by the order of the School Tribunal, respondent no.3 had filed Writ Petition No. 4425/2001 before this Court. It was submitted before this Court that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal in respect of the termination of an employee working in a Primary Ashram School. This Court accepted the submission and by the order dated 30/09/2002, relying on the judgment given by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Suryakant Sheshrao Panchal vs. Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jati Bhatkya Jati Adarsha Prasarak Mandal and others, reported in 2002 (3) Mh.L.J. 659 , held that the appeal which was filed by respondent no.3 before the School Tribunal was not maintainable. This Court observed that respondent no.3 had to approach the competent authority to seek redressal of his grievance. After the order was passed by this Court, respondent no.3 filed appeal before the Director of V.J./N.T., O.B.C., S.B.C. Maharashtra State, Pune. This appeal has been decided by the Divisional Social Welfare Officer by the impugned order. The appeal having been allowed directing reinstatement of respondent no.3, the petitioner-management has filed this writ petition. 5. Mr. After the order was passed by this Court, respondent no.3 filed appeal before the Director of V.J./N.T., O.B.C., S.B.C. Maharashtra State, Pune. This appeal has been decided by the Divisional Social Welfare Officer by the impugned order. The appeal having been allowed directing reinstatement of respondent no.3, the petitioner-management has filed this writ petition. 5. Mr. Chitle, learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that there is no provision under the Ashram School Code, which provides for the remedy of appeal to the employee to challenge the order of termination/otherwise termination as in the present case. He has further submitted that the Divisional Social Welfare Officer had been entertaining and deciding the appeals filed by the employees of Ashram Schools on the basis of the powers conferred by the Government Resolution dated 18/06/2005. Though this submission is not raised in the petition and the Government Resolution is not annexed to the writ petition, the learned Advocate for the petitioners has relied on the judgments given by this Court at Aurangabad Bench in the case of Parivartan Vidya Prasarak Sanstha and another vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No. 483/2005 on 16/10/2009 and in the case of Balkrishna Raghunath Jadhav vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No. 3044/2011 on 02/08/2013. In both the above mentioned judgments, this Court has considered the issue as to whether the Divisional Social Welfare Officer is competent to entertain and decide the appeal filed by the employees of the Ashram Schools, seeking redressal of their grievance. 6. In the judgment given in the case of Balkrishna Raghunath Jadhav vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No. 3044/2011, the learned Single Judge has relied on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, A.P.D. Jain Pathshala and others vs. Shivaji Bhagwat More and others, reported in (2011) 13 SCC 99. The learned Single Judges in both the above mentioned judgments have held that the State Government cannot confer the power on the authority to adjudicate the dispute by issuing executive orders or resolutions. 7. Mr. Maheshwari, learned Advocate for respondent no.3 has submitted that this Court while deciding Writ Petition No. 4425/2001 has permitted respondent no.3 to approach the competent authority and accordingly the appeal was filed, which is decided by the Divisional Social Welfare Officer. 7. Mr. Maheshwari, learned Advocate for respondent no.3 has submitted that this Court while deciding Writ Petition No. 4425/2001 has permitted respondent no.3 to approach the competent authority and accordingly the appeal was filed, which is decided by the Divisional Social Welfare Officer. The submission is that, the Divisional Social Welfare Officer has decided the appeal as per the above mentioned order passed by this Court and this is clear from the statement in the impugned order, which reflects that the appeal is entertained and decided by the Divisional Social Welfare Officer in view of the communication issued by the Government of Maharashtra and the Director. 8. Mr. Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the Director has issued the communication dated 17/01/2003, in view of the observations of this Court that the respondent no.3 can approach the competent authority. The submission as made is misconceived. The order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4425/2001 does not specify that the appeal has to be filed before the Divisional Social Welfare Officer but it says that the respondent no.3 may approach the competent forum. Moreover, if there is no jurisdiction with the authority to entertain and decide the dispute, even this Court while exercising the extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot confer jurisdiction on the authority to decide the dispute. 9. Mr. Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader and Mr. Maheshwari, learned Advocate for respondent no.3 have not been able to point out any statutory provision under the Ashram School Code or under any other law, which empowers the Divisional Social Welfare Officer to entertain and decide the appeal filed by respondent no.3 for the redressal of the grievance as made by the respondent no.3. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the Divisional Social Welfare Officer on 1st of December, 2003 is set aside and the appeal filed by respondent no.3 is dismissed as not maintainable. Rule is made absolute accordingly. However, in the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs. Needless to say that respondent no.3 can avail of the appropriate remedy according to law, if so advised. Rule is made absolute accordingly. However, in the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs. Needless to say that respondent no.3 can avail of the appropriate remedy according to law, if so advised. As observed by this Court at Aurangabad Bench while deciding Writ Petition No. 483/2005, on which the learned Advocate for the petitioners has relied, the Court or the authority, before which respondent no.3 approaches, shall consider the consumption of time in the prosecution of the matter before the wrong forum/wrong authority by respondent no.3 and shall take liberal view as far as the limitation is concerned, according to law.