JUDGMENT : HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J. 1. By way of present petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “(A) quash and set aside the orders dated 18th January 2005, at Annexure E and the order dated 17th March 2008 at Annexure G passed by the Gujarat Primary Education Tribunal. (B) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, execution, implementation and operation of order dated 18th January 2005 at Annexure E passed by the Gujarat Primary Education Tribunal, may be stayed. (C) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, execution, implementation and operation of order dated 17th March 2008 at Annexure G passed by the Gujarat Primary Education Tribunal, may be stayed. (D) Ex-parte ad interim relief in terms of Para (C) and (D) hereinabove may please be granted. (E) Such other and further relief/s as may be deemed just and proper in the facts of the case may be granted.” 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under: 2.1 The petitioner is a Trust duly registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The petitioner initially had been running various educational institutions including Rina English School as well as Rina English School, Gujarati Medium for primary section. As per the claim of the respondent No. 1 that she was appointed as a Teacher in the year 1986. Thereafter, she had served at other places from the year 1987 till 1994. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 preferred Application No. 220 of 1992 before the Gujarat Primary Education Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) on the ground that since 13 months she had not been paid her salaries and from June 1992 she was not permitted to perform her duties. 2.2 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 1 was suspended from the service, which action was approved by the respondent No. 2-Administrative Officer. The respondent No. 1, thereafter, preferred Application No. 92 of 1994 before the Tribunal challenging the order of suspension. 2.2 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 1 was suspended from the service, which action was approved by the respondent No. 2-Administrative Officer. The respondent No. 1, thereafter, preferred Application No. 92 of 1994 before the Tribunal challenging the order of suspension. Pending the above application, the petitioner had constituted an Inquiry Committee and first show cause notice and charge-sheet were also served upon the respondent No. 1 and after following due process of law, the inquiry proceedings were conducted by the Inquiry committee and the said Committee had submitted its report, whereby 2 members of the Committee had held that all the five charges levelled against the respondent No. 1 have been proved beyond doubt. It is the case of the petitioner that after a period of 45 days, the petitioner informed respondent No. 1 that her services have been terminated. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 preferred Application No. 156 of 1994 before the Tribunal. Due to unavoidable circumstances, the Secretary of the petitioner-Trust was unwell, his wife also expired and due to some social reasons, the petitioner could not participate actively in such proceedings. As a result, the case of the petitioner could not be put up properly before the Tribunal and ultimately, on 18.01.2005, the Tribunal passed the final order directing the petitioner-Trust to reinstate the respondent No. 1 in service and to pay 100% back-wages from the date of termination of respondent No. 1 i.e. 18.07.1994. 2.3 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was never served with the copy of the order passed in the review application dated 17th March, 2008. It so happened that respondent No. 1 herein has preferred Execution Application No. 4 of 2005 before the learned Tribunal for the execution of the order passed by it and during the pendency of such application, rejoinder was filed somewhere in July/August 2009. The impugned order passed in review application was enclosed alongwith such rejoinder. Only then the petitioner came to know about the passing of orders in Review Application No. 4 of 2005 as well as 5 of 2005. Upon inquiry, the petitioner found that the review applications preferred earlier by the petitioner have been rejected. The impugned order passed in review application was enclosed alongwith such rejoinder. Only then the petitioner came to know about the passing of orders in Review Application No. 4 of 2005 as well as 5 of 2005. Upon inquiry, the petitioner found that the review applications preferred earlier by the petitioner have been rejected. 2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the orders passed by the Tribunal dated 18.01.2005 produced at Annexure E as well as the order passed by the Tribunal in Review Application Nos.4 and 5 dated 17.03.2008 produced at Annexure G, the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Baiju Joshi, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Trust, has submitted that the orders passed by the Tribunal are neither legal nor proper and therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. He has submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that the appointment of respondent No. 1 Teacher itself was illegal, under the circumstances, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the application preferred by the respondent No. 1 and therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal deserves to be rejected only on the ground of want of jurisdiction. He has submitted that the respondent No. 1 cannot be termed as teacher under the provisions of the Primary Education Act, 1947 for the reason that the respondent No. 1 was not appointed as per the mandatory provisions of the Primary Education Act and therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain such an application filed by the person who is illegally appointed. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in entertaining such an application preferred by the Teacher who is admittedly appointed without following due process of law and therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is bad in eye of law as being without jurisdiction. 4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Joshi has submitted that the petitioner found that the respondent Teacher has committed misconduct and therefore, a show-cause notice was given, charge-sheet was issued and after constituting an Inquiry Committee, the inquiry was held against the respondent No. 1. Teacher and her service came to be terminated. 4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Joshi has submitted that the petitioner found that the respondent Teacher has committed misconduct and therefore, a show-cause notice was given, charge-sheet was issued and after constituting an Inquiry Committee, the inquiry was held against the respondent No. 1. Teacher and her service came to be terminated. He has further submitted that since the petitioner was not getting enough students for the primary section, the Primary School was closed down in the year 1999. He has also submitted that it is true that the petitioner could not draw the attention of the Tribunal of such aspect that beyond the year 1999, no primary school was being run and managed by the petitioner Trust, the petitioner Trust was managing a Secondary School and under the circumstances, even otherwise the order of reinstatement could not be complied with. He has further submitted that so far as the order passed by the Tribunal rejecting the review applications are concerned, the Tribunal has simply held that the contentions raised in the review applications do not fall within the review jurisdiction and therefore, such review applications are dismissed without dealing with any of the arguments and contentions raised in the review applications and therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal rejecting the review applications is bad in eye of law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. As against that, learned advocate Mr. Chetan Pandya, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1, has opposed the present petition and submitted that the present petition was admitted by this Court on 14.05.2010 and this Court granted interim relief by staying the benefit under the impugned order under condition to pay salary upto the date of the alleged closure of the school. However, the reinstatement and other benefits were subject to the final disposal of the present petition. He has further submitted that in the year 2021, the respondent No. 1 had moved an application before this Court for expeditious hearing of the petition, wherein, she has categorically submitted in paragraph no. 4 that till today the order dated 14.05.2010 passed by this Court has not been complied with by the present petitioner. 6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. 4 that till today the order dated 14.05.2010 passed by this Court has not been complied with by the present petitioner. 6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. It is relevant to note herein that the school run by the petitioner Trust came to be closed and was not functioning and at present the said Rina English School is not in existence as it was closed down. The said fact is supported by the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3-District Education Officer, Rajkot. In response to the contention raised by the learned advocate Mr. Pandya for the respondent No. 1 with regard to compliance of the order dated 14.05.2010 passed by this Court, today, learned advocate Mr. Joshi appearing for the petitioner was not able to make any affirmative submission. The order dated 14.05.2010 passed by this Court reads as under: “Rule. The order of the Tribunal is stayed on condition that: 1. If the school is closed, as stated by the deponent at page 76, then the respondent No. 1 will be paid salary upto the date of closure. 2. Other benefits will be decided at the time of final hearing of the matter. 3. Reinstatement will be subject to the result of the petition.” 6.1 Considering the submissions canvassed by both the sides and considering the fact that the petitioner has failed to comply with the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 14.05.2010 at the time of admission of this petition, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed mainly on the ground that the order passed by the Tribunal as well as the order passed by this Court at the time of admission of this petition are not complied with by the petitioner-Trust. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition being devoid of any merits is dismissed. Rule is discharged. 8. It is open for the petitioner that in case of any difficulty, he may revive this petition by way of filing fresh petition, which shall be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law.