1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Letters Patent Appeal No.156 Of 2009 In Writ Petition No.4232 Of 2009 With CA No.8732 Of 2009 In LPA No.156 Of 2009 Prakaschand Laxmichand Jain ... Appellant. Versus The President, Hindi Seva Mandal, Shastri Vidyanagar, Shivajinagar, Bhusawal And Others. ... Respondents. -------- Mr. S.P. Brahme, Advocate for appellant. Mr. A.G. Talhar, Advocate for respondents Nos.1,2 and 4. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Additional Government Pleader for respondent No.3. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE: 15th OCTOBER, 2010 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2 2) The learned counsel Shri. S.P. Brahme submitted that considering the purpose behind the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, the order of promotion issued in favour of respondent No.4 ought to have been notified prior to his promotion which has not happened in this case. The promotion to the post of Head Clerk is based on seniority alone according to the counsel. The management had committed error in promoting respondent No.4 in the year 2000. 3) The learned counsel Shri. A.G. Talhar submitted that considering the object behind privileges attributable to minority institutions like present one, the order of promotion be held valid. The respondent No.4 was promoted considering his merits and his name was forwarded for notification under the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Act. The same was accordingly notified. Therefore there is no inherent lack of authority with the management to promote respondent No.4. 3 4) We have perused the relevant record placed before us and the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Considering the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Act and the object behind the same the learned Single Judge reached conclusion that the order of promotion passed in favour of respondent No.4 by the management does not call for interference. 5) It is true that, the management could have taken steps strictly in accordance with law and adopted proper procedure. But at the same time considering the object behind granting some privileges to the minority institutions and keeping in view the broader perspective we find that interference in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is not warranted. The issue relates to the promotion given to respondent No.4 in the year 2000. 6) The Letters Patent Appeal and the Civil Application are dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (K.K. TATED, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ lpa.224.09