1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 3956/2008 Shri Bapudas D. Karmenge ..vs.. The Education Officer(Sec),Zilla Parishad and others. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Shri S. K. Pardhy, Adv. For petitioner. Shri A. D. Sonak, AGP for R. Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : B. H. Marlapalle and A. H. Joshi, JJ. Dated : 11th November, 2008. We have heard Shri Pardhy, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The grievance raised in this petition is for promotion to the post of Head Master from the reserved category. The petitioner claims that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe and he came to be appointed on 1/1/1988 as an Assistant Teacher under the respondent No.5-School run by respondent No.4-Management. The petitioner claimed that he was due for promotion to the post of Head Master in the year 2004, which was wrongly denied. He approached respondent No.3 with a representation to update the roster for the post of Head 2 Master. By the impugned communication dated 27/12/2007, the said request has been turned down. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of New English School Association and others ..vs.. Baldeo Fakira Aade, has held that Rule 9(10) of the M. E. P. S. Rules 1981 provides for 24% reservation for the backward classes for the post of Head Master. And therefore, if there are three posts of Head Master, the said rules of reservation will not be applicable. Shri Pardhy relied upon Government Resolution dated 23/10/2007 and submitted that the said Government Resolution has given the concession and therefore, the impugned communication is contrary to the said Government Resolution. The law laid down by this Court can be set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but it cannot be nullified by an executive order or by the Government Resolution. In any case the Government Resolution does not support the petitioner and the petitioner cannot rely upon the same. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned communication issued by respondent No.3. The petition is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE. Andurkar.