: 1 : 108-11-wp=.sxw UJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 108 OF 2011 Shree Siddheshwar Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha & Anr. .. Petitioners v/s. Shree Basgonda Ramchandra Kumbhar & Ors. .. Respondents ......... Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar for the petitioners Mr. Subhash Langote i/b Mr. Vishnu A. Madane for respondent no.1 Mr. P.G. Sawant, B panel Counsel for respondent no.2 State Mr. Balasaheb S. Solankar for respondent no.3 in person present. ......... CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J DATE : 8th DECEMBER,2011. P.C. : 1. This writ petition challenges the interim order dated 21st December, 2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Kolhapur. in Appeal No.65 of 2010 directing the operation and effecting of the impugned order be stayed till decision of the appeal. This order was passed after hearing the petitioner respondent. The facts leading to this petition in short can be stated as under. : 2 : 108-11-wp=.sxw 2. The respondent was working as Assistant Teacher in the School run by the petitioner management. On 1st June, 2010, the petitioner management passed Resolution for appointing the respondent no.1 as ‘incharge Head Master’. Thereafter, a proposal seeking approval of the respondent no.1’s appointment as ‘Head Master’ was sent to the Education Officer and on 7th September, 2010 the approval was granted. The petitioner management immediately challenged this approval saying that the proposal for approval was not sent by the Management and that there was no resolution proposing appointment of the respondent no.1 as Head Master. The Education Officer withdrew his earlier order of 7th September, 2010. Thereafter, the petitioner management passed a resolution appointing respondent no.3 as the Head Master and directed the respondent no.1 to handover charge of the post of the incharge Head Master to the respondent no.3. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent no.1 filed the appeal asserting that the impugned order amounted to reduction in rank. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent no. 1 sought the impugned order for continuing his position as Head Master and the same was passed. The question that arose for my consideration is - Whether, prima-facie, the respondent no.1 was appointed as Head : 3 : 108-11-wp=.sxw Master? The answer to this is in the negative. 3. On perusal of the so called proposal dated 26th August, 2010, which is annexed with a Resolution of the management, I find that the same was neither a proposal for approval nor the Resolutions mentioned that the management has resolved to appoint the respondent no.1 as Head Master. It is, therefore, prima-facie clear that the order of approval passed by the Education Officer dated 7th September, 2010 was apparently incorrect and illegal. He ought not to have passed such order. If one disregards the said order, the respondent no.1 could have continued as incharge Head Master until he is properly appointed by the Management as a full fledge Head Master. As expected, the Education Office withdrew has order on 7th September, 2010. Thereafter, the management was free to take their decision as to whom they should appoint as Headmaster and such decision was made by the Management through Resolution dated 9th September, 2010 appointing the respondent no.3 as the Head Master. After passing of such resolution, a formal order appointing the respondent no.3 as Head Master was issued. In view of this order, the respondent no.1’s claim for Head Master’s post stood over ruled. He may even say that it amounted to his super cession. : 4 : 108-11-wp=.sxw 4. I think that respondent no.1 could have filed an appeal against his supper cession. Such step can still be taken. But in view of the finding recorded above that the approval of 7th September, 2010 being grossly illegal, the respondent no.1 is not entitled to any interim relief. Writ petition, therefore, succeeds. The impugned order stands set aside. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.)