IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4733/08 [Municipal Council ..vs.. Ku. Harsha Madavi & ors. ] ===================================== CORAM: S.R. DONGAONKAR, J. DATE: 18 /3/ 2009 . Heard Shri Sambre, Advocate for petitioner, Smt. Jog, Advocate for respondent no.1 & Shri Jaiswal, AG.P. for respondent no.3. None present for the respondent no.2, though served. Petitioner is challenging the order of Education Officer in respect of interse seniority of respondent no.1 and 2. Various grounds are raised by him, however it appears that in the present case respondent no.2 is not contesting the matter though she was served and appears to be the aggrieved person in the present matter. According to the petitioner because it has to maintain seniority list, the matter which is raised before this court need to be decided, because such occasions may also arise in future. After careful consideration of the matter, I am of the view that when respondent no.2 who appears to be aggrieved party in the present matter has not come before the court to challenge that order or even to support petitioner. There would not be any locus for the petitioner to challenge that order, as he is required to follow directions of the Education Officer in respect of seniority list. It is also apparent that there is no period of limitation prescribed for preferring a complaint to be made in this respect. Therefore, on that ground also ex-facie, petitioner is not entitled to raise any grievance for respondent no.2, who is not before the court. When the matter was being heard, it was noticed that the Deputy Director of Education Nagpur Division Nagpur has issued so many guidelines in a letter issued to President / Secretary, Wardha Zilla Madhyamik Va Uccha Madhyamik Mukhyadhyapak Sangh dated 30.6.2004. It appears that these guidelines/ clarifications were issued in view of discussion in the workshop of the Headmasters of Wardha District. Said clarifications are on many important issues. One of them is the subject matter rather reason for this petition. It is noticed that such clarification though as contended by the learned A.G.P. may not be binding, may give rise to several litigations. The Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur is not party before the court, therefore, it is expected that the A.G.P. would advise him appropriately. Petition stands dismissed in view of the above mentioned observations, being not maintainable, for want of grievance raised by the aggrieved party – respondent no.2 and as petitioner can not be said to be directly aggrieved party. No order as to costs. JUDGE smp.