This being the position, the absence of a challenge to the order of termination by respondent No.4/Mrs. Fuke, makes the termination fnal and binding not only upon the management-trust but also upon the respondent-authorities. The Education Ofcer or for that matter, 5 respondent No.4/Mrs. Fuke cannot be permitted to circumvent the statutory remedy, under the guise of an application to set aside the order of dismissal being entertained by the Education Ofcer, on the ground of the dismissal order being passed by the management without authority. This course was not open nor can be held to be 10 open or permissible to any dismissed employee or any Education Ofcer or other authority. The second reason for not accepting the contention of learned Counsel Mr. Barlinge is that the issue of any dispute between the management, has to be raised by persons, who are in the management or who have any interest in the trust. In the 15 instant case, respondent No.4 Mrs. Fuke cannot be said to be a person having any interest in the trust, so as to raise any dispute. That apart, no other person has come forward, before the Education Ofcer, claiming any dispute in the management. At least, the reading of the impugned order or for that matter, the petitions and 20 the replies therein, do not refect any such dispute as is sought to be canvassed. On the contrary, by the judgments dated 23/05/2014, the Asstt. Charity Commissioner in Change Reports Enquiry No. 178/2014 and 179/2014 has accepted the change for the years 2009-2012 and 2012-2015 to be legal and valid. That apart, Change
