respondents in Writ Petition No. 727 of 2009, in the matter of maintainability of the proposed appeal before the School Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Despite this, it is quite unfortunate that respondent No.3, objected to the maintainability of the appeal, once such appeal was instituted by the petitioner. No doubt, it is possible that such objection was prompted by the absence of challenge to the specific order by which respondent No.3 was promoted or by the absence of the word “ supersession” in the memo of appeal, ultimately instituted by the petitioner. Further, Mr. Bandiwadekar may be right in his submission that there can be no estoppel against the statute and further, even consent does not confer any jurisdiction, if, in law, such jurisdiction, is not vested in an authority like School Tribunal. Therefore, much will not turn on the basis of order dated 17 February 2015 in Writ Petition No. 727 of 2009. The order and what is recorded therein, at the highest, is relevant for appreciating the conduct of the respondent No.3 herein, particularly as no objection was raised to the maintainability of the appeal, when, the petitioner applied for leave to withdraw the petition, with liberty to institute the appeal before the School Tribunal, in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in case of St. Ulai High School (supra).
