1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3969 OF 2010. Mah. Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and another. -: VERSUS :- Presiding Officer, Addl. School Tribunal, Nagpur and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : OCTOBER 06, 2010. Heard Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, learned Counsel for petitioner, Shri Kankale, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 3 and Shri P.N. Shende, learned Counsel for respondent no.2. Writ Petition No. 3414/2010 filed by the management challenging the judgment of School Tribunal, granting reinstatement to respondent no.2 in present matter has been rejected by separate order today. By this petition, challenge is to another judgment dated 19.03.2010 in Appeal No. STN 334/1993 whereby the School Tribunal found petitioners wrong in as much as the claim of respondent no.2 2 for promotion to the post of senior clerk was bypassed and respondent nos.4 and 5 were permitted to supersede him. Respondent no.2 had claimed the said promotion with consequential benefits from 1987-88, however, for reasons recorded the School Tribunal has permitted said promotion and consequential benefits from 16.12.1991. Shri Bhandarkar, learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the Education Officer granted approval to the promotion of respondent nos. 4 and 5. Respondent no.2 happens to be son-in-law of President of Petitioner and hence at this stage, after superannuation of respondent no.2, the management is required to pay, though respondent no.2 never worked on that post. He argued that as fault lies with the education officer, education officer has to compensate respondent no.2. Learned A.G.P. for respondent no.3 Education Officer has urged that the approval was given in accordance with law. Shri Shende, learned counsel for respondent no.2 has pointed out that immediately after supersession, an appeal was filed and appeal remained pending for about 17 years. According to him, there is nothing wrong with the orders as passed. 3 The facts clearly show that the petitioners have bypassed the seniority of respondent no.2 by promoting respondent nos. 4 and 5. The date 16.12.1991 worked out by the School Tribunal, is also just and proper. After their promotion, respondent nos. 4 and 5 have worked on promoted post and have earned salary. Respondent no.2 could not and did not work on that post as initially he was wrongfully terminated and then after his interim reinstatement, his seniority was overlooked. In this situation, the petitioner cannot blame the education officer in the matter. I, therefore, do not find anything wrong with the orders passed by the School Tribunal. Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.